Hi, i recently started using Photoshop on a mac and have noticed that whenever I have created an image, saved it and uploaded it to the web the colours are (very slightly) different. it’s not very noticeable but it bothers me as I choose colours very specifically.
I have used Photoshop on my PC for years and have never had this problem when saving files in the same format and uploading to the same places as I am now on Mac.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
You’re seeing the difference between sRGB and your monitor’s color. In PS, you can proof setup monitor RGB and see a preview of that difference. Here’s a great resource to start: <http://www.gballard.net/psd.html>
You should now be embedding the sRGB profile in all images posted to the Web because of the increasing use of wide-gamut monitors by your viewers.
However, you will still have absolutely no control over the way that your images may be seen by Users using non-color managed Browsers on uncalibrated monitors on different platforms!
Thanks for the replies but i’m still quite confused.
J, i followed the advice in some of the links on the page you linked. My colour settings and monitor settings are exactly as they should be. Yet still my images look different when saved for web…
I understand i have no control over changes in colour when images are viewed by other people with different monitors and settings, but I at least need to know that the colours i’m using on photoshop will be the same colours i see on the web!
My colour settings and monitor settings are exactly as they should be. Yet still my images look different when saved for web…
I understand that Windows applications treat non-tagged images as sRGB but Apple applications (including Safari) map images to your Monitor Space and your Monitor Space obviously varies somewhat from the sRGB space.
Embedding the sRGB profile in your JPEGs would help.
I only use Firefox and I always have the box for embedding colour profile ticked when saving if it’s there (although usually i save as .png and the option isn’t available for that)
on a mac and have noticed that whenever I have created an image, saved
it and uploaded it to the web the colours are (very slightly) different…My colour settings and monitor settings are exactly as they should be. Yet still my images look different when saved for web
the problem is how ColorSync deals with untagged RGB (and also how OSX treats tagged RGB in unmanaged applications)
for all practical purposes OSX-ColorSync Defaults/Assigns/Assumes/Applies its default monitor profile to un-tagged RGB (and tagged RGB in unmanaged applications)
Still, the great majority of the Web surfers of the world do not have calibrated monitors and haven’t a clue what monitor calibration is. And they don’t really see or care enough to adjust the color on their TVs. And they drive around in cars that are black, white, or some neutral or dull metallic.
OF COURSE you will get better results if you use embedded profiles and color-managed web browsers
THE TROUBLE IS you may only be fooling yourself into thinking that’s what everyone else will be seeing, too
IN REALITY the web is based on untagged sRGB and 99% of web surfers do not use color-managed web browsers and calibrated monitors
If you are after that 1% of people who do use color-managed web browsers and who also have proper profiled monitors then there is your #1 best reason to use embedded ICC profiles on the web…
1% of people who do use color-managed web browsers and who also have proper profiled monitors then there is your #1 best reason to use embedded ICC profiles on the web…
That’s almost a non sequitur. Embedding the ICC profile in a sRGB file on the web will NOT make that file look any worse to anybody, so why not let that 1% view it better? Isn’t that 1% actually the only group of people who can conceivably have an interest in judging colors?
As long as the embedded profile is not harming the 99%, why not provide an even more pleasant viewing experience to the other 1%.
If someone were to give me a dime for each of the web viewers that make up that 1%, I’m pretty sure I’d be one happy camper. B)
Embedding the ICC profile in a sRGB file on the web will NOT make that file look any worse to anybody, so why not let that 1% view it better?
It depends on the visual content of the image file. Most UI elements on a page (buttons, rules, icons, bullets, etc) do not need to be color managed. Bandwidth adds up on this extra color profile data. I don’t see any images on Adobe.com that have embedded ICC data. They are all generic sRGB (without any extra embedded profile data).
I have faith that the minority of users with wide gamut displays and color managed systems are competent enough to compensate for the billions of existing images on the net that are untagged, plain sRGB. If they cannot, then their misuse of color management is their own problem.
It’s getting quite annoying now because I’m helping someone whose coding a site and giving them hex codes i’m finding on photoshop, then seeing a different colour on the site.
I don’t have much of an understanding of the whole colour profiles etc, and it’s frustrating because i’ve never had these problems when using a pc. I got a mac as I thought they were supposed to be better for design, but how can i design anything properly if the colour on photoshop isn’t consistent with colour on the web?
why not (embed profiles and) let that 1% view it better?
I WILL CONCEDE your point about embedding profiles in pixel-based web images if 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.
BASICALLY SO you are not confused into thinking everyone else is seeing the same color you are seeing in Ps and Color-Managed browsers.
OTHERWISE, I will stay with my general recommendation not to embed profiles on the web because very few high-traffic professional sites, in any, use embedded profiles.
AT THE VERY LEAST, take a few minutes to understand the beast and form your own opinions…
Neil, see post #1. You can proof your monitor colours in Photoshop. Since your non-colour-managed browser will display your images in your monitor colour space, what you see in Photoshop will then be identical.
Since your non-colour-managed browser will display your images in your monitor colour space, what you see in Photoshop will then be identical.
With the emphasis on "YOU" because nobody else in the whole wide Web is going to see the same thing!
Especially those who have invested in the wide-gamut monitors who are most likely to be serious professionals (such as art directors and editors) that you most need to impress.
Web site buttons may be a different matter, but every new photograph that I have posted on the Internet during the past year carries an embedded sRGB profile and I couldn’t care less if they are 4K bigger because of it!
I couldn’t care less if they are 4K bigger because of it!
That is because relatively few people look at your images. Imagine the bandwidth increase if the thumbnails in Google’s image search had profiles.
Why is anyone advocating the attachment of a sRGB profile to correct color managed apps & wide gamut monitors that should be displaying un-managed images as sRGB anyway? That is total insanity. It is not the content creators fault for this difference in color. We can better petition the display/system/app developers to correct the way they handle un-managed images than to ask every single image on the internet to be updated. But charge toward whatever windmills you want…
Why is anyone advocating the attachment of a sRGB profile to correct color managed apps & wide gamut monitors that should be displaying un-managed images as sRGB anyway?
That is because relatively few people look at your images
That’s a valid point. For very high-traffic, graphics-heavy sites, it could have an effect on page-to-page speed…or even whether you might have to invest in another server or two.
On one business site we manage, we strip all graphics down to the bare bones, stopping just short of the point where the appearance of the graphics begins to suffer.
That is because relatively few people look at your images
That’s a valid point. For very high-traffic, graphics-heavy sites, it could have an effect on page-to-page speed…or even whether you might have to invest in another server or two.
On one business site we manage, we strip all graphics down to the bare bones, stopping just short of the point where the appearance of the graphics begins to suffer. This even includes stripping off blank peripheral margins.
advocating the attachment of a sRGB profile to correct color managed
apps & wide gamut monitors that should be displaying un-managed images as sRGB anyway
great
I think once the great Apple Computer realizes that point (and fixes their OS/CMM accordingly) there won’t be any need to embed profiles in the near future.
Windows Vista (and FireFox 3 with CM enabled) has it correct they Default/Assume/Apply/Assign sRGB to untagged and unmanaged color they don’t have the problem displaying untagged sRGB correctly, and they don’t have the problem matching tagged and untagged color in color-managed browsers.
1) The billions of images on the internet will be updated
or…
2) The fewer than a dozen manufacturers of operating systems/browsers/wide gamut displays that have been discussed in this forum will correct their product
I know where to place my bets and where to save my bytes.
It is amazing how many people never have a problem on the PC side until they step over to the mac.
When most develop on the PC side, truthfully, most that I know at least do not care what a mac user sees. They are only concerned with the largest target audience, PC users. They concentrate on IE browsers and maybe at least take a look at other browsers on their platform, but it isn’t like the old Netscape and IE 4.0 days.
But when these developers switch to the mac, then they lose all understanding quickly and worry because they can’t seem to get things to display properly.
Maybe someone should find the best post on this matter and create a thread to make into a sticky at the top, so people who venture in here see the thread and maybe links within and understand they problems.
Also, I realize a lot of this is biased on opinions of what to do or what not to do. Again, the PC user just moves along in life and feels pretty comfortable that the next user, at least on the pc, will see what they wanted them to see.
"But when these developers switch to the mac, then they lose all understanding quickly and worry because they can’t seem to get things to display properly."
If they lose all understanding when switching to the Mac, then I say they had no understanding to start with. Seriously, when you actually understand this, there simply are no problems.
As far as I see it, the one thing that would help us all is allowing us to designate an assumed profile of your choice, particularly important when you have a monitor that is not sRGB. Being able to do this on the Mac would get around this silly Monitor RGB assumption for web images.
I didn’t advocate what they do, I only explained how they feel and what they concentrate on. Shoot the messenger all you want, but I felt it should be pointed out.
pfigen –
I often see how people here on the mac forum say something to the effect that they then never had an understanding of CM. I agree it is simple. But as one who came from the PC side to the mac… and how often I see threads exactly like this… I can tell you the last thing you expect when making the switch is that monitor profiles and colorsync come into play.
If these are things that work differently on this platform than the PC and most agree that sRGB tags are not necessary on the PC side and most those browsers, then why would one state they must have not understood this to begin with. No, it is like you said, Mac wanting to use the Monitor RGB is silly. Hum. That may be why switching from the pc side to the mac confuses most.
I still say someone should take the answer to why and write it up and make it a sticky… then those users who are in the midst of switching can read the answer to their question.
Fire away and shoot at me all ya want. Ramon – you haven’t really touched a pc in how long?
I don’t think any of us give a darn about "buttons, rules, icons, bullets,
etc" or how they look
[I] care a lot how my graphics appear on my web pages especially if I am trying to blend a dropped out logo JPEG (or other graphic effect) into a specific page color and not see the telltale box around my logo.
Currently using Mac Safari, I cannot place a specific Tagged sRGB color in an UnManaged page color and have it disappear BECAUSE
1) ColorSync Applies MonitorRGB to the UnManaged page, and
2) ColorSync reads (and Applies) sRGB profile to the graphic.
In any Mac browser, I can easily get the Untagged sRGB graphic to disappear in the UnManaged page color BECAUSE
3) ColorSync Applies Monitor RGB to BOTH the Untagged sRGB graphic and the UnManaged page color.
ColorSync is Applying the wrong profile, but at least it is consistent.
+++++++
I think the issue boils down to understanding how to use your tools and tagging color on the internet has some real pitfalls thanks to how the Mac deals with color.
I don’t give a darn about "buttons, rules, icons, bullets, etc" or how they look
Isn’t CS4’s SFW defaulting to adding a sRGB profile (or did I screw up my default settings)? In the hands of careless designers who fail to alter the default setting, they are adding junk profile data to those "buttons, rules, icons, bullets, etc".
If they lose all understanding when switching to the Mac, then I say they had no understanding to start with.
The problem is that neither do exclusive Mac users. Mac users are accustomed to their own CM system and have no consideration for the 90% of the rest of the world for which they design. The frequency of these web CM threads indicate Mac users have quite a bit to learn about CM.
The problem lies with Apple and their approach to color management — default 1.8 monitor gamma, and ColorSync applying Monitor RGB to untagged color — leaves web designers a confusing and impossible target hit.
For example, Mac users are by Apple’s default Applying their 1.8 monitor gamma to a 2.2 sRGB world on the internet.
This leaves most Mac users looking at a lighter more washed out internet whether they know it or not.
CS4 Ps Save for Web (SFW) defaults: Ps SFW strips ICC Profiles Most users would be wise to leave these defaults alone…
Some "Users" perhaps but NOT any serious photographers
For a mere 4K, why on earth would you not do your best to make sure that as many people as possible see your photographs in the best available light? Buy a bigger server, or rent more server space, for heavens sake!
Actually probably well over 90% of the Windows users’ monitors that I have seen are so uncalibrated that I can only imagine that their owners are color blind.
Buy a bigger server, or rent more server space, for heavens sake!
I’d give a hearty "agreed" for the many sites where the presentation of photographs and other pictorial information is important. The traffic to these sites is often less, as well.
But for sites that build pages on the fly, thousands of pages per second, and crank through their small graphics and tons of data at a breath-taking speed, smaller files and more efficient pages is better. The fastest throughput, even 4K-per-graphic less at a time, is paramount. Graphics are stripped to the bone, with tight cropping, no added file information, and high compression. Say you have ten graphics per page, and build and stream 1000 pages per second, that’s 40,000K or 40MB/second worth of data transmission you save.
Sorry, Ann…for the benefit of anyone trying to grasp the roots of this simple and predictable web color problem, I will recommend you review this thread and form your own opinion based on your own needs.
Therein is the problem. Serious photographers should know better than to expect perfect color on the web. A web page is not a delivery method for high quality images so this expectation of extreme color accuracy is absurd. Why don’t we post 16 bit JPG/PNG/GIF images on our web pages? Why don’t we post images that exceed 1000 pixels in width? The answer is the same reason why we don’t fret so much over CM.
You are talking about "graphics" (often of dubious quality to begin with!) on mass-marketing direct sales sites.
I am talking about Photographs which are a major consideration for a lot of the Photographers who are using Photoshop as opposed to people using Illustrator or Web design programs.
Any SERIOUS Photographer who fails to embed an sRGB Profile in an image that is posted on the Web, or e-mailed to a potential client, is being more than foolish in my opinion particularly as the Viewers that really matter to him are the people most likely to have invested in wide-gamut monitors.
If Gary was seeing what I am seeing on my Monitor (NEC 2690 WUXi) when I look at the UN-tagged photographs on his gballard web site in Safari, he would be horrified!
Firefox is better. And his tagged photographs are fine in both Safari and in Firefox.
I don’t get the impression that you are a Professional Photographer?
Certainly, you have been very careful to shield us from experiencing any of your work so it is difficult to know how concerned you may be about the quality of your productions.
Ann, I don’t need to prove my work to you or anyone like you who is more concerned about insulting/belittling others than to intelligently discuss this topic. But feel free to look at the work of high end businesses that don’t bother with embedding profiles. I’m not sure why you would have been oblivious to these professional web sites.
Let’s take Apple for an example. We all know that they are guilty of some of the monitor profile mess so one might think they of all businesses would/should be including profile data in their images.
They certainly seem to have no problem with large images. Their home page sports a big 106 kb image today. What does another 4 kb matter? But even with that large image, they did not include a profile. Maybe a web page for their high-end image app Aperture should have a big poster image with profile.
No. It doesn’t either.
I’m not here to represent myself. I’m only here to represent standard web design practices.
I don’t get the impression that Ann does much web publishing so her profile embedding advice does not seem to reflect what web professionals do.
I’m only here to represent standard web design practices.
Is it just possible that those "standard" practices have been rendered "outdated sub-optimal practices" by the advent of wide-gamut monitors?
There is a huge difference between web sites which are built to sell industrial and commercial goods and web sites which are designed to display and promote Artists and Art Work (such as paintings and photographs).
Commercial sites which sell jewellery or fabrics (including clothing), and whose sales depend on portraying accurate colors to on-line shoppers so that they are not inundated with returned goods; might also want to change the way that they have been doing things.
If Gary was seeing what I am seeing on my Monitor (NEC 2690 WUXi) when
I look at the UN-tagged photographs on his gballard web site in Safari, he would be horrified!
Ann,
I know how horrific your 2690 wide-gamut monitor displays untagged sRGB color on the Mac OS.
That is why I returned my Dell wide-gamut panel and got the standard-gamut NEC 2490 to use as a third monitor alongside my 30" Apple monitors.
I recall we warned you about buying your high-gamut monitor specifically BECAUSE of how the Mac operating system displays untagged and unmanaged sRGB on the internet, but you bought it anyway and I am glad it fits your needs.
+++++++
BE ASSURED though, I understand and have carefully considered all the basic color variables in my web publishing business and decided to publish 98% of my photos without profiles.
I also publish much larger files and higher-quality jpegs than most sites because this approach fits my current needs.
+++++++
SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS
I think some here are overestimating the seriousness of secure color professionals.
The Photoshop artists who do get it likely read good books from expert authors like Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe and formed their own workflows around their particular needs and expectations.
I know how horrific your 2690 wide-gamut monitor displays untagged sRGB color on the Mac OS. That is why I returned my Dell wide-gamut panel and got the standard-gamut NEC 2490 to use as a third monitor alongside my 30" Apple monitors.
And thus blinded yourself to the full range of colors that you would otherwise be seeing (especially in CMYK Press previews) and returned to living in blissful ignorance of what others see when they look at your work?
A bit myopic, i would say.
I still think that you made a very bad decision when you returned the wide-gamut monitor.
Is it just possible that those "standard" practices have been rendered "outdated sub-optimal practices" by the advent of wide-gamut monitors?
Okay Ann, point taken. So why don’t the manufacturers of those displays update their own website images with profiles?
I’m still confused why an imaging professional like yourself cannot configure your wide gamut display to render untagged images properly as sRGB. Your idea of tagging images is like going to a doctor to complain about a sensitive nerve. The doctor would not suggest sticking 20,000 pins everywhere else on the body to distract from the original pain. Fix the pain/monitor and you won’t need to repeatedly mess with 20,000 other nuisances. It is the most basic engineering concept that should be apparent to even amateurs.
You don’t begin to comprehend either the principles of color management or the effects of monitor gamut do you?
I, and any other person on this forum, can comprehend that if something does not look right, we fix it in the most reasonable manner. We have no control over all the other images on the internet to attach profiles. So there is no logic in this extraneous profile method, even on the images that we do control.
There is the comprehension problem for you.
Why would any of us want to access the web where only a portion of images (the images Ann has tagged with a profile) look good? Fix your system to display untagged images as sRGB so that they all look good. That is what a professional who fully understands CM would do.
You still don’t "get" it: the point is not whether YOU like what YOU see when using one of these monitors it’s what your CLIENTS, and potential clients, see when they look at your UN-tagged images on THEIR wide-gamut monitors.
But do feel free to continue to dwell in your myopic world if it makes you fell happier they do say that "ignorance is bliss"?!
And it’s not just the over-saturated reds which are the trouble but virulent Greens and flesh-tones which look as if the subject is suffering from scarlet fever. ——
And Jim:
Before you make yourself appear even more idiotic, just try actually using one of these high-end Displays so that you can begin to understand what we are talking about!
The point is that these new Wide-gamut monitors can display a range of colors far extending beyond those that are visible on your old-fashioned sRGB monitors and, if you view UN-tagged images on them, the colors in the image are "re-mapped" to fill the available color-space whereas TAGGED images look superb with a brilliance and richness that you have probably never experienced.
But, as you have obviously not been fortunate enough to experience these vastly superior new monitors, you have no idea what you are missing.
Pity about that although what you have is probably adequate for indiscriminate run-of-the-mill Web Surfing. If you were involved in Pre-press work or were a professional photographer, it would be a different matter.
I think that it matters. But I suppose that’s just me!
I know that it is a lot of work to re-open, and tag, existing images on a web site but for color-critical work, such as paintings and photography, I think that it’s worth doing.
"I know that it is a lot of work to re-open, and tag, existing images on a web site but for color-critical work, such as paintings and photography, I think that it’s worth doing."
It doesn’t seem like it would be much trouble at all, as long as you have access to the folders of images, to run the Embed ICC Profile Applescript and re-upload the website. Would take almost no time at all on web sized files.
Would take almost no time at all on web sized files.
Don’t fall into Ann’s insanity. Are you understanding what she is proposing? It would take an infinite amount of time. How do you individually apply a profile to every image on the web? She’s only addressing her own images. The educated wide gamut display user will set up their system to show untagged web images as sRGB. How is this so difficult for her to comprehend? Does she need explicit instructions how to do this?
I was only assuming one person on a single web site, not the entire web.
Unfortunately, on your second suggestion, there is not currently a way to do what you suggest. Untagged files on the Mac are automatically assumed to be in Monitor RGB. Now there are some wide gamut displays that can be dumbed down to sRGB or something close to it, but that would defeat the purpose. The only way to do it is to convince the software developers to add the ability for the user to designate an assumed profile, something that is currently missing.
That assumption is the problem. You need to look at this as an entire problem with the web. Fixing only a few images is not the answer.
Unfortunately, on your second suggestion, there is not currently a way to do what you suggest.
Yes there is. It has already been discussed in these threads. I cannot imagine what is Ann’s problem that she has to insult others here as "idiots" or those that simply don’t "get it". Those insults don’t make her look any more intelligent. There is no harm in tagging her images if she has the time to do it (but there is no significant benefit either). Likewise, there is also no harm in tossing salt over your shoulder. Some of us are simply not slaves to pointless effort.
By the time wide gamut displays reach the common consumer market, developers will have fixed the mess so that no one needs to think about this. The subset of users today that have these displays are high end users that should know better than what Ann is spouting here.
The subset of users today that have these displays are high end users
JJ make a good point.
I think the ‘high end’ users know what they are getting into and don’t buy these panels for web work/surfing on a Mac.
It is the people who don’t know what’s going on that are sold on the "Adobe RGB is better" pitch (or simply walk into a store and buy the latest monitor) who are suffering.
I heard Apple 10.6 is switching to default 2.2 monitor RGB.
Let us hope Apple also follows through by allowing us to pick a default RGB color space (to end this "color difference on web" madness).
You either really don’t begin to understand the issue; or your requirements are solely for low-quality mass marketing of commercial products.
It is obvious that you have no experience in either the use of high-end wide-gamut monitors or the more demanding standards of graphics arts professionals.
In either case, my recommendations are of no interest to someone in your field who is using your standard of equipment so please feel free to ignore them.
Ann, I fully understand the issue. I cannot begin to comprehend your rudeness and ignorance. You state Firefox is better; so why don’t you use it like other WG users and quit whining about Safari?! Don’t blame every single web author because you have made a poor selection of OS/browser/display. If you sort out the combination and settings there is no problem.
You are asking everyone else to pave roads in rubber because you have a flat tire on your sports car and are driving on the rims.
Nuts!
I’ve had enough of Ann’s insanity and her insulting behavior. It is no wonder no one can stand to live with her. Good luck to anyone that follows this crap. I’m done on this one.
It is no wonder no one can stand to live with her.
Not exactly born out by the facts and an outrageous comment to make when you know nothing about someone.
But of course your purpose is, as always, to disrupt every serious discussion in this Forum and get a Thread shut-down when you have made a fool of yourself in it.
