Safe for web changes color

My Prefs' in Photoshop are sRGB since I work for web only. My CS3 color settings are synchronised in Bridge, Europe General Purpose.
When I want to safe an image for web , let's say I filled the whole thing with brown/red #990f27, the color that I see in the SFW-window turns out to be a complete diffrent one*. Ofcourse I can get the right color in the SFW window by chosing the option Use Document Color Profile (the little triangle up in the right corner). The problem sééms solved, but it isn't: the exported file is only the right color in Safari since that browser supports Color Profiles, as only one.
Onliest solution untill now is doing the work in Firweorks, Seems like as if ther are no color profiles there. Seems even like it is making nicer colors... but that's another subject.
sRGB is as far as I know the smallest color profile. Why are then still colors transmitted to others when I save for web??? And how can I avoid this in Photoshop instead of swithing to Fireworks?
*If I measure them with the Digital Color Program that comes standard with Apple, the one in the SFW window is #990F27 and the one in the Photoshop document is #8B382E. But in Photoshop the Color Picker says it is #990F27. Can anyone explain me this?

>> tagged or untagged sRGB, it is the smallest color profile
Simply: sRGB is the target color space on the internet.
>> I believe I finally get it...this is due to Mac and not to Dell...there is no key to solve this by calibration?
Yes, that is the conclusion I came to.
>> So what difference makes the tagging?
Tagging means everything in color-managed applications BECAUSE the color management system reads the embedded profile AND converts it to the Target proofing profile: http://www.gballard.net/psd/cmstheory.html
Again, the problem is Windows Assigns sRGB to untagged color, and Mac Assigns Monitor RGB to untagged color (at least that's how Safari was performing the last time I looked).
For unmanaged applications, we CONVERT to the target color space ICC profile and Save a copy -- that is the best we can do.
Again, Windows Vista Business (Safari color-managed app) here sees ZERO change in the sRGB rollovers on BOTH standard- and wide-gamut LCD screens.
This tells us Windows browsers Assume-Apply-Assign sRGB to untagged color.
Further, I am pretty sure Safari Windows browser is mapping (converting) the sRGB to the monitor profile and displaying sRGB faithfully through Monitor RGB regardless if it is tagged or untagged.
These hi-gamut monitors seem to work fine with sRGB and the internet.
Not to burst your brain, but viewing your untagged hi-gamut Monitor RGB in Windows Safari will be off BECAUSE Windows is Assigning-Assuming-Applying sRGB to it (I think).
You could prove this easily by saving tagged and untagged JPEG versions of Monitor RGB and dragging them into an open Window Safari window and seeing for yourself.
This is not at all as complicated as it reads --- once you understand how ICC profiles work and don't work --- --- that is where I would send you back to review, not trying to figure it until you get the profile issues wired in because then it will only take a minute to identify the problem (and the rocket science is left to the experts).

Similar Messages

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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: change default connection speed

    I've checked my Photoshop book, the online help, the knowledgebase and done a forum search. I may be using the wrong keywords.
    When I go to Save for Web and Devices and I look at the optimized, two-up view or four-up views, down in the optimization info area in the lower left hand side of the window, how do I change the default speed from 28.8 to something else? In CS2 there was a way to change this, and now I can't for the life of me figure out how to do it in CS3.
    Can anyone please help? Thank you in advance.
    Photoshop CS3, OS 10.5.5, MacPro, 4G RAM

    Theresa, just to clarify for the benefit of others reading this thread in the future,
    if I recall correctly, those settings
    DO NOT affect the file at all, they're there for the only purpose of showing you how long the file will take to open at each of the indicated connection steps so that you can choose an appropriate size for the file.
    The "default" setting is, therefore, only relevant to the extent that you may want to see that information at a given connection speed every time you save a file without having to click on the contextual menu.

  • SAF for Web Client without search engine?

    Hi!
    Is it necesary to implement SAF to have IC Web cliente, if we do not need Search Tools?
    Best regards,
    Cristina

    Hello Cristina,
    You don't necessarily need the Software Agent Framework (SAF) for the Interaction Center if you don't need to the Knowledge Search (e.g., solution search) or ERMS Categorization and Solution Auto-Suggest.
    Warm regards,
    John

  • Corrupt (weird?) images after using Safe for web?

    Since upgrading to CS4 i noticed that a number of images saved with 'save for web' do not display in a browser? It happens for jpegs as well as gifs, and when i upload them to a server they won't display - not even if i use the direct link to the image. Instead, i see the file-name displayed in firefox. I also noticed that saving the same image with the same save-for-web-setting 2 times gives me a massivee discrepancy in filesize - like 60k for the one, and 1.8mb for the other?
    Yesterday i uploaded a 'save-for-web'-image to Twitter, and Twitter told me that "...the image can't be used. Is it animated?" - the weirdest thing about this was that it was a jpeg - ever heard of animated jpegs?!
    Anybody else noticed something like this? I've been working with both Photoshop as well as webdesign for more than 10 years, so i can assure you i know what i'm doing. I just don't know what to do about this issue?
    Thanks for your help!
    Hans

    Have you tried trashing your Saving for Web preferences?

  • Safe for Web files have no thumbnail

    would anyone know why my saved for web files in CS6 are appearing as a blue box with a question mark. I'm using the trial version
    Message title was edited by: Brett N

    Could you be more specific? Where are they appearing as a blue box with a question mark?
    My guess is the file extension is not being saved to the file (.JPEG or .GIF). If you know which format the files are supposed to be, try renaming one of them by adding the extension (if it is not there) and see if they start to work.

  • Copy & paste into save for web color palette doesn't function on macs

    This didn't work in CS2 either on the mac side. Yet, you can copy a color hex code in the normal program, save for web and paste that color into the color picker for matte on a gif just fine on a PC. Get on a mac and you better get a pen out. Why?! Why can't I paste into the save for web/devices color picker?! Seriously? $600 and I can't copy and paste because I use a mac while at work on the PC I can do it without issue.

    Is this something that will be given to mac users in a future update?

  • Rescuing my RAW color from Photoshop's "Save for Web"

    Hi,
    I love the depth of colors the images have in RAW format (with 16bits per channel). However, when I go to Save for Web, the color profile gets trashed (in the preview as it would in a browser) and I'm left with a lifeless image that pales in comparison to the original. To prepare for this, what I've been doing, is switching to the 'Monitor RGB' Proof Setup and adjusting Brightness & Contrast. Is there a better way? Thanks.

    >If I'm not embedding the ICC profile in the JPG, won't Save for Web/Monitor RGB show me what the file will look like in a browser?
    No, it will only show you what it looks like on
    your monitor in an unmanaged app. It will
    not show you what it will look like on other people's monitors. sRGB was designed to resemble an average monitor, so if you want to know what your image will look like on average on other people's monitors in unmanaged apps/browsers/flash, you need to look at a sRGB version in a managed app. Otherwise you're just targeting your specific monitor and actually causing a bigger difference on other people's monitors because of it.

  • 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.

  • Pshop CS3 Save for Web Increases Width/Height

    Hi, I've been using Photoshop for 15 years and used the Save for Web at CS2 without problem. In CS3, it is downsampling the res from 300 ppi to 72 correctly but at the same time increasing the width and height, as though I'd gone into Image Size to do the resize and had the Resample Image field unchecked. This worked fine in CS2, so what gives? I can't find any setting that needs to be changed in the Save for Web interface.

    Buko, I respectfully submit that your comment makes no sense. In CS2, using Save for Web automatically cut down the ppi to 72, and it removed web-unnecessary things like previews and paths so that the file could become smaller. It did NOT change the width or height of the image.
    The CS3 version is cuts down the res to 72ppi. This is fine. The problem we're experiencing (on more than one machine) is that it's growing the width and height as though it's not downsampling when it changes the res. IF that's what you mean by "strictly pixel based," then OK, but it's problematic.
    This is exactly the opposite result that you get if you take a digital camera photo that has a large dimension but low res, and increase the res to 300 while not allowing it to resample: you get a high-res image with smaller width/height image, as all pixels get smaller but maintain their exact colors.
    If the CS3 version of Save for Web changes the diensions of the image, which is frequently created based on the final dimensions needed in the web page, then it's freakin' useless, and I might as well create an Action using Image/Image Size to reduce the res but maintain dimensions.

  • 'Assertion has failed' Error when using Save for Web (PSCS)

    This problem is due to the Save for Web preferences becoming corrupted.
    Delete the Safe For Web Preferences by holding down CTRL+ALT whilst clicking on File>Save for Web.
    (the Save foe Web preference file is saved at:
    C:\Documents and Settings\~username\Application Data\Adobe\Save for Web\8.0\
    if you wish to delete manually)

    You are not really making sense.
    a) Viewing images at more than 100% in any viewer will introduce resampling from image to screen space. Different tools use different algorithms, but none of them will ever be perfectly "sharp". Again, simple mathematics.
    b) JPEG is a compressed format that will never produce "sharp" lines in areas that don't coincide with the underlying block compression. If you wanted that, you'd use PNG or other formats.
    So unless you can provide screenshots that illustrate your issue better at 100% zoom, I see nothing out of the ordinary here. Of course there could be all sorts of issues liek color space conversion or odd pixel sizes causing unfavorable distribution of compression blocks, but we realyl cannot judge any of that based on teh info you provided. Just saying that something doesn't look like you experct it to isn't really helping...
    Mylenium

  • Why does ppi matter for web images?

    Hello
    When placing an image in my (web/pixel) project the resolution is dependent from the set ppi.
    When I create a new document for web, then logically only the pixels matter. Nonetheless there's a ppi field, why? And depending what value it has, placed pictures (file > place or drag&drop from Windows' explorer) get resized instead of the wanted 1:1 resolution.
    1 pixel should remain 1 pixel when working with in pixels.
    Try it out:
    Create a new document with Full HD resolution (1920x1080 pixels), set ppi to 10.
    Import a Full HD picture (Blu-Ray screenshot whatever) and it's mini-sized.
    My screen resolution is 59 ppi (I use my 39" TV as monitor) and this is set in the Photoshop preferences (in case I do some print stuff that I get a 1:1 view if wanted). If there was any logic behind the pixel-ppi-placing thing, then this set standard monitor ppi should bring me a 100% sized picture... but it doesn't. Only when the ppi is set to the fantasy value of 72 I get a 100% sized placing.
    This can be disturbing and is very annoying when starting a new project by opening an image that does not come with 72 ppi by default (my Canon camera makes 180 ppi JPEG photos)  and placing new pictures in this project. They get opened in wrong sizes, in my case largely upscaled, with no way to correct it but guess-scaling it down.
    Bug?
    Pls pls fix it.
    Ppi has nothing lost in pixels-only projects.
    The only way that works is to open all single images in Photoshop as tabs, and then drag&drop from within Ps. -.-
    Regards
    Mopsi
    Example screenshot: http://www.m-i-u.de/images-i83580bxvogj.jpg
    The yellow framed layer is a image from my camera, opened in Photoshop CS6 extended. 3264x2448 pixels (180 ppi).
    The green framed layer is a screenshot from a movie, drag&drop from the explorer. 1920x1080 (normally) unwanted upscaled here.
    The red framed layer is a screensot as well, but drag&dropped from a tab within Photoshop. It remains in its original resolution of 1920x1080.

    I'm wrong and your right. I just did some testing and Photoshop does indeed interpolate the lower resolution 600x400 72DPI image is  up size to match the higher resolution document document size during the place process. I just assumed Photoshop would preserve image quality and not interpolate the image.    As you have shown it does interpolate the image which greatly lowers the image quality of re-sized low resolution image.
    This shows you should not use Photoshop to merge images into a composite if they have greatly different resolutions.  I don't have a problem there for I never use "save for web" to save images to be displayed on displays from the web or my machine.  I use Fit Image and save as, or a Image Processor script that uses Fit Image to re-size and uses save as.  The leave all my images files resolution setting unchanged.   For some reason Save for Web changes all jpeg files it saves resolution  setting to 72 DPI even if they are 8MP images for high resolution displays..
    During testing I also tried using Photoshop's script Load Files into Stack instead of using Place.  That script works the way I assumed Photoshop Place would work.  Images layer are not interpolated they remain the correct number of pixels and the image quality is not is not changed.. The image layer are normal layers but can be converted to smart object layers however the object would be normal layer not an image file.
    When you use Place you get
    It also possible to undo Photoshop's Place scaling with a simple calculation.  Divide the image layer's original dpi by the document's dpi here there are three layer that did not start at 300dpi. two started out as 74dpi image file the other a 500dpi image file.  72/300=.24 = 24% the other 500/300=1.66666 = 166.66%
    all you need do is change the associated layer's image transform width and height scale from 100% to the calculated percents
    The only time I set document to 72DPI resolution is in Photoshop Scripts so I can calculate a font size  for a charter sting so it will fit the canvas size.  Photoshop Text Tools seem to be tied to 72DPI resolution.  Once I add the text layer I restore the document DPI resolution back to its original setting.
    So when it comes to Photoshop all files use in a project should have identical DPI resolution for best result when making composites.    My image files are either RAW files which have no DPI for they are not RGB image files. Or RGB Image files that have a high DPI resolution. I process images for print. Image files DPI resolution is meaningless when if comes to Display Screens.  All that matters is the number of pixels a display can display and the number of pixels in the image. Even images I re-size for display screens DPI are high for I do not use "Save for Web". I see no good reason to strip metadata and change resolution to 72DPI.  I tend not to interpolate image except the ones I save to be displayed on a display.  I change Print size by changing the DPI setting without resample.  My Epson 4800 inkjet printer has no problem printing high resolution pixel I see no reason resample my camera 16MP image down in size just to print at 300dpi.  If I want to a single 6"x4" print I see nothing wrong printing it at 816DPI.  My eyes can not resolve down there the printer can.  However when Printing on Roll Paper many 6"x4"  the composite document I create via a script has a 300DPI resolution and the image layers are resized to be 6" x 4".

  • Change Color in Messages and General Customization (Pixi Plus Verizon)

    Hi everyone, I just got the Palm Pixi Plus and I'm still figuring everything out, so I hope this isn't a silly question. Is there a way to change the background color of each contact in Messaging? My outgoing messages are always green and incoming messages are always displayed in blue - is there a way to assign a color to a contact or message thread?
    It also seems that in general, the display of the phone does not seem very customizable - is this true or have I just not figured it out? For instance, changing colors/font sizes in menu, adding a larger clock to the Launcher screen, etc, options that are pretty standard on all cell phones. Is changing the wallpaper really the only way to customize the display?
    Thanks a lot!

    Hello kbend and welcome to the forums;
    By default, wallpaper and sound customizations are the extent of changes you can make. However, as was noted in the official Palm blog http://blog.palm.com/palm/2010/03/makeover-madness.html the homebrew community has the ability to "theme" your device, changing nearly every aspect of the user interface.
    Please be aware however, adding homebrew applications or patches is not supported by Palm, and we would be unable to troubleshoot anything related to these features.
    Hope this helps,
    TreoAide

Maybe you are looking for