LR 1.1 web export color discrepancies

Okay, I have googled all over for this and have found people with the same issue, but nobody seems to have the answer. Hoping someone here has a solution to this.
What I am seeing is my colors being "enhanced", sometimes way too much when I export in either flash or HTML in the web module. I have done all kinds of tests, but I absolutely cannot find any settings for exporting in the web module. when I do an export under "file->export" and use colorspace AdobeRGB, it looks just like my Nikon RAW file. However, if I change the colorspace on export to sRGB, the color is greatly enhanced. This makes me feel as though I have no control over my images.
Take a look at the 2 following images. The first one is just a plain screenshot of the image in LR, the second image is a screenshot of the file after being viewed in the flash web export. Clearly LR is modifying the image on upload, but for the life of me I cannot find where this modification is taking place so I can try to shut it off. I would like full control of my images and just can't get it using the web export. Please help! I'm running windows XP Pro.
first image:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4528/beforelilydm6.jpg
second image from flash export: (Yes I know it looks better, but I have zero control of it!)
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7501/afterlilykn9.jpg

In its basic form, the difference you're seeing is caused by the absence of color management in Windows browsers (with only partial support in Safari) and flash. However, I think you may also have an issue with your monitor profile.
Windows allows you to assign an ICC profile to your monitor that describes its color response (control panel -> display properties -> settings -> advanced -> color management). Lightroom uses this profile to convert the image data so that it displays correctly on your screen.
Browsers (Windows) and Flash do not do this, and send the image data directly to your screen instead. *If* your image is in sRGB *and* your monitor's response is close to the sRGB standard, things may look ok, but there are no guarantees.
However, the differences you are showing are very large, which leads me to believe that your monitor profile is describing a color space that is much larger than sRGB (the default web output). Have you assigned the Adobe RGB to your monitor, by any chance? Your monitor profile should match your monitor's actual response, so try to get one from your monitor manufacturer, or, better yet, get a hardware calibrator. If you're desperate, you can also try assigning the sRGB profile, but it's *not* a real solution [even less so for lousy laptop LCDs].

Similar Messages

Black stroke around image in Web Export

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 LightRoom'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 Bridge 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

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work. I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor. I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself. No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%). When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%). When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above. At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use. So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output. Anyone else do this? It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible. I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
profile.
Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
photographer's websites.

LR3 image export color problems.

When I export images from LR3 they are somewhat de-saturated - significantly different from what I see in lightroom.
This is viewing them outside of lightroom in the folder I have exported them to. I am using a Dell Vostro 17" that is calibrated.
Currently using ver 3.4.1 acr 6.4.1.
I have tried changing every color space and every file format available in the export dialogue - they all look the same after export.
Even tried varying the resolution and or size.The end result is the same.The only thing I haven't tried is printing to my 2880 to see if there is also a problem there.
Any suggestions?

Thank you Hal
I was instructed to do as you have indicated and until recently wasn't
paying close attention to my web exports and after looking closer you are
right on the money.
It wasn't until recently viewing a tutorial by RC Concepcion[photoshop guy]
in which he suggested trying- I believe Adobe RGB - vs sRGB that I started
to compare my web output to LR3 and was surprised to see how far off some
images were - obviously non-color-managed.
So now I am sort of breathing a sigh of relief but disappointed that some
images will not be viewed quite as I had hoped they would.
Gene

Slow Web Export in Aperture 1.5.1

I feel a little crazy for asking this, but it seems like web exports have gotten significantly slower since I upgraded to Aperture 1.5.1. I cannot find anything on my machine that would cause this. Has anyone else experienced this?
-Fletch
PowerMac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8)

I haven't noticed it being slower in v1.5.1 than previously. That said it's too slow and slower than it should be. My Mac Pro can knock out files as fast as 18 high res. files per minute (~90mb each. from 1DsM2) when I'm batching but web galleries tend to hover around 3 files per minute (2-6 overall). That's much too slow and would be a nightmare on location if you have to generate a web gallery from your laptop of a few hundred files.
Aperture needs to have an option to generate the web galleries from the thumbnails it creates (which I think fit within 1000 px square - more than enough for most web galleries) or from previews rather than from the raw files. This would speed things up considerably.
I haven't been using previews, I turned them off, so you might be able to use them for that if your referenced files are off-line, but it would still be nice to have the option to generate web galleries from Aperture's built thumbnails or the previews from an Aperture library or from referenced files.

INDD to PDF: web-safe color palette?

Context: currently, the Google Docs Viewer/Embedder, when used to display a PDF in a browser, heavily downsamples images in the PDF resulting in grisly color changes and posterization. This has been discussed for a long time elsewhere on the web (example) and is something Google might eventually deal with.
I assume Google's intention was to hack down bandwidth usage, which I don't begrudge them, but the results stand out glaringly in an otherwise vibrant WWW. Embedded fonts work fine, and the only other visual/layout errors can be with some more advanced design effects—unless they are flattened down to Acrobat 5 compatibility.
With the nasty color changes, what I believe I'm seeing is a re-processing of the images in the PDF with ye olde web-safe color palette. Or maybe its paleolithic predecessor. FYI the source PDF is unaffected. And FYI, yes, I am aware of many other options for embedding a PDF in a web page; I'd like to try and solve this one.
My thinking is this: if I can output my InDesign file such that images are converted more gracefully to a web-safe palette, and possibly with more satisfactory color dithering, then the results via the Google Docs Viewer/Embedder might be improved, more predictable, good enough for now.
I know how to do this with Photoshop, and I assume it's a Photoshop engine working behind the scenes in/for InDesign when processing images, so I'm hoping this is attainable.
Semi-educated guesses:
That a suitable color profile could be created and selected when outputting either PDF or PS, resulting in 255-color (indexed) RGB images in the final PDF layout.
That the long way is to make alternate versions of each image used in the layout, swap them (such as with relink to file extension, e.g. GIF for TIF), and output a version specifically for embedding.
Thanks in advance for any creative thinking.
Edit: it's looking like the limit is far fewer colors, possibly 16. Gross. But I'm still curious about the possibility of a method for this, as it could have other applications.

After getting both your replies, I went back and experimented some more. I am creating a pdf for a b&w book interior, and it is setup as an ID book, with two files. I was trying to generate the pdf from the book.indb file without the individual book indd files being open. That resulted in the screen in my initial question.
I went back and doubleclicked both of my book indd files and selected both, then generated the pdf from the book.indb file. This time I got the proper choices Document CMYK - U.S. Web Coated ....

Html link to specific photo in flash web export

I want to send someone links to specific images in my flash web export. I know I can direct them to the source image file, but I want them to see it in the flash export interface. Is there a way I can make a duplicate copy of the index.html and edit the start image and save as another name, or would I have to copy and alter the flash file?

You can't do a direct link to the image witht the built-in Flash movie. If you need to do this often, consider getting the SlideShowPro web engine and switching on "permalinks".
But to resolve your existing problem, it is fiddly. I assume you want the rest of the web gallery to work, so copy the index.html file, and then look for a folder called resources\mediaGroupData and make a copy of the file group.xml, so you have two xml files in that folder. What you would need to do is edit this "copy.xml" so it only lists your picture. Then back to your copy of index.html and replace any references to group.xml with copy.xml. I told you it was fiddly!
John

Will I always get color discrepancies when lab printing images softproofed on a 75% on AdobeRGB monitor?

Hi,
I am struggling to get printed output from a professional printing service to match what I see when I softproof on my monitor. The printed image always looks considerably more green and warm, although whites are ok. Blue skies tend to get warm greenish. The printed image often looks like a warm instagram filter had been applied.
I have two (different generation) Dell U2412M monitors (Dell U2412M = Standard gamut = 71% NTSC, 74.3% Adobe RGB, 95.8% sRGB).
These are the steps I have taken to try to achieve color consistency between monitor and print:
I have calibrated and profiled with a Spyder 3 Express using BasICColor Display 5 software, previously also used the Datacolor software that came with the calibrator. After this, what I see on my monitor "looks normal" (skin tones, landscapes etc.)
I shoot RAW with a Sony NEX6, develop in Lightroom 4 using ProPhoto 16 bit color space.
I softproof in Lightroom using an ICC file provided by the printing service.
I use Lightroom to print to file tagging it with AdobeRGB profile. Either as TIFF or as JPG 100%.
I print with the direction to the printer to "not make any auto corrections to my file".
I have Windows 7 64bit.
I thought this would mean that I would get - probably not perfect - but at least a very strong match between softproof and printed image. But I do not.
Are these rather strong color discrepancies to be expected given my hardware?
Is my Spyder broken (it's out of warranty)?
Or is my workflow erroneous?

Guermantes wrote:
I am struggling to get printed output from a professional printing service to match what I see when I softproof on my monitor. The printed image always looks considerably more green and warm, although whites are ok. Blue skies tend to get warm greenish. The printed image often looks like a warm instagram filter had been applied.
I have calibrated and profiled with a Spyder 3 Express using BasICColor Display 5 software, previously also used the Datacolor software that came with the calibrator. After this, what I see on my monitor "looks normal" (skin tones, landscapes etc.)
Could be the calibration targets (how you asked to celibate white point etc). Could be the output. Could be the ICC Profile. Could be your file. You have to decide which is which.
Start here: Why Are My Prints Too Dark
Then download a good color reference file like this one: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
Soft proof and see if any green or odd color cast appear. If so, probably the profile but use it and have a print made. The output should look good (neutral in neutrals, reds that don't appear yellowish etc).
Generally speaking, if you send Adobe RGB (1998) and the other side assumes it is sRGB, you will end up with desaturated colors. This isn't the fault of Adobe RGB but rather assuming that data is sRGB which it isn't.

Trouble creating web exports in BPA

I´m currently trying to create a web export in BPA, for a database where I applied a specific filter and where I customized som models and attributes.
At the end of the exporting process, while "transfering attributes", the process stops with an error.
I created another database, where I applied the same filter, and the export is successful, I can view the results in Publisher.
Thanks.
Ana Telha

Have you tried creating the export from scratch? Also, have you tried with any of the different profiles? I believe BPA ships with Profiles 1,2,3 which are all slightly different. Does your export fail using every profile?
I also know from bitter experience, that if you perfom an export and then change any aspect of the export profle (for instance) you are unable to update any existing exports successfully.

Unable to make web exports

Hi, all, i have the following installation:
BP Repository Server & BP Publisher in the same machine, the database is in a second machine (in an Oracle 10g db)
the communication between BP Architect and the repository works OK,
but when i want to create a web export i got the message "the procedure was canceled" and "unable to create export". In the window of the Tomcat process execution i see this exception:
Client receives this exception as CORBA::UNKNOWN
operation name: "createDataTransfer"
id: iiop
local address: 10.10.10.123:17059
remote address: 10.10.10.25:4232
com.idsscheer.aris.businesspublisher.dao.ADAOException: ADAOException
at com.idsscheer.aris.businesspublisher.dao.ADAOSystemFacade.installSystemIfNotExistent(ADAOSystemFacade.java:103)
could be because i don't have a direct connect between the BP Publisher and the database and it is trying to use the Olite default database.
Any thoughts?
thanx in advance
José

Hi Jose,
can you please check he config file for server.xml with respect to hostname/ip and also check the corresponding entry under catalina? Please make sure they are fine and restart the server.
Regards,
JMehta

Save for Web Export

I am trying to use the save for web export option to save out a file of type JPEG.
I have gotten the code working fine if it saved out with the default file type of .gif, but I cannot get it to work with .jpg.
set theExportOptions to {class:save for web export options, interlaced:true, quality:30}
tell current document
export in (theLocation as text) as save for web with options theExportOptions
end tell
These are the pertinent lines from my code, so if anybody can tell me how to save the file as type JPEG so that it is a scripted version of Photoshop's save for web feature, that would great.
I am also using Photoshop CS2 v9.02 if that helps.

You would have to code that seperate eg:
FitImage(1000,500);
function FitImage( inWidth, inHeight ) {
   if ( inWidth == undefined || inHeight == undefined ) {
      alert( "FitImage requires both Width & Height!");
      return 100;
   var desc = new ActionDescriptor();
   var unitPixels = charIDToTypeID( '#Pxl' );
   desc.putUnitDouble( charIDToTypeID( 'Wdth' ), unitPixels, inWidth );
   desc.putUnitDouble( charIDToTypeID( 'Hght' ), unitPixels, inHeight );
   var runtimeEventID = stringIDToTypeID( "3caa3434-cb67-11d1-bc43-0060b0a13dc4" );
   executeAction( runtimeEventID, desc, DialogModes.NO );

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

Photoshop CS6 save for web some colors change?

I have a picture with large area of color: #fffdfd, when I save it for web (jpg) this color is changed to #fefcfd (in JPG).
I just can not save as JPG with #fffdfd.
(was trying uncheck convert to sRGB, do not embed color profile - always #fffdfd changes to #fefcfd when save for web)
However, color #fefcfd when save for web , does not change.
Why some colors change and some not? Is it a bug ?
Window7 64bit, Photoshop CS6

Save for Web & Devices will strip some color data from the file.
Browsers aren't color managed. Most file formats on browsers assume they're sRGB. While Photoshop gives you an option of embedding sRGB to the document color space, it also strips off data that is not relevant. This is a common occurence.
PNG-24 on the other hand will give you the exact color match.
Also, Save for W&D, JPG quality matters a lot - The same color at Quality 10,20,30,40,50...100 wil give you different color reproductions on the JPG end output.
If you're concerned that much about an offset of +/- 1 hex value to your RGB colorspace, dont save for web & devices. Do a 'Save As' instead. Then use an image editing/ resizing application such as ResizeMe to resize the quality of your document. This, in most cases will retain colorspace information but just drop the resolution and quality of the image - giving you a lesser filesize.
On a sidenote, You may also want to read this article on how to best manage color spaces: http://viget.com/inspire/the-mysterious-save-for-web-color-shift

Have 'Web Named Colors' as default?

When opening GL CS2 the default color select is 'Recent Colors' when I click on a color well, is it possible to set that default to be 'Web Named Colors' instead?
Thanks.

anymore comments on this guys ??? I just need to know if this is normal or is there something I am doing incorrectly. Many thanks in advance.

Alternative to Save for Web/Export as CSS Layers?

I'm am SO DEVASTATED that CS6 got rid of the option to save as CSS layers in Save for Web. I just updated from 5 to 6 and now I'm looking for an alternative but am having no luck. I've tried some scripts I've found online but none of them work the way I need, or at all.
I do animation in AI where each layer is a frame on the animation. In CS5 I could Save for Web and check the Export as CSS Layers box. This would export all the layers in my AI file to pngs, where each layer is it's own png file, in one folder. I could then import them as an image sequence in Photoshop and turn layers on and off with each frame to create my animation.
I tried exporting my AI file to a PSD file with maximum editability but the more complicated the animation (meaning the more layers and the more objects on each layer) it would start flattening layers without warning. Not to mention the rendering time just opening the file in Photoshop and then trying to save it there once I had created all my frames. Photoshop froze on me 6 times this morning while I was trying things out.
I'm desperate for a simple way to do the CSS layer trick. If I can't find one, I'm going to have to go back to CS5 permanently, or until I can find a solution.

here you go, let me know if it cuts it.
#target Illustrator
// script.name = exportLayersAsCSS_PNGs.jsx;
// script.description = mimics the Save for Web, export images as CSS Layers (images only);
// script.requirements = an open document; tested with CS5 on Windows.
// script.parent = carlos canto // 05/24/13; All rights reseved
// script.elegant = false;
* export layers as PNG
* @author Niels Bosma
// Adapted to export images as CSS Layers by CarlosCanto
if (app.documents.length>0) {
    main();
else alert('Cancelled by user');
function main() {
    var document = app.activeDocument;
    var afile = document.fullName;
    var filename = afile.name.split('.')[0];
    var folder = afile.parent.selectDlg("Export as CSS Layers (images only)...");
    if(folder != null)
        var activeABidx = document.artboards.getActiveArtboardIndex();
        var activeAB = document.artboards[activeABidx]; // get active AB
        var abBounds = activeAB.artboardRect;// left, top, right, bottom
        showAllLayers();
        var docBounds = document.visibleBounds;
        activeAB.artboardRect = docBounds;
        var options = new ExportOptionsPNG24();
        options.antiAliasing = true;
        options.transparency = true;
        options.artBoardClipping = true;
        var n = document.layers.length;
        hideAllLayers ();
        for(var i=0; i<n; ++i)
            //hideAllLayers();
            var layer = document.layers[i];
            layer.visible = true;
            var file = new File(folder.fsName + '/' +filename+ '-' + i+".png");
            document.exportFile(file,ExportType.PNG24,options);
            layer.visible = false;
        showAllLayers();
        activeAB.artboardRect = abBounds;
    function hideAllLayers()
        forEach(document.layers, function(layer) {
            layer.visible = false;
    function showAllLayers()
        forEach(document.layers, function(layer) {
            layer.visible = true;
    function forEach(collection, fn)
        var n = collection.length;
        for(var i=0; i<n; ++i)
            fn(collection[i]);

LR 1.1 web export color discrepancies

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for