Skip navigation
bob-vin
Currently Being Moderated

A specific save for web/save as problem

Nov 27, 2012 8:44 AM

I'm trying to save jpg images with a background of 245 245 220 and no matter what I do, I get 245 245 221. I have done suggested color mgt stuff. Other colors seem to work fine but not this particular one. I have never had this issue before! It is for an online marketplace and must be exactly correct or we get (and have gotten) our images rejected.  There are examples at http://www.bob-v.com/test/245-245-220-test.psd and http://www.bob-v.com/test/245-245-221-result.jpg . Help please!

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 9:19 AM   in reply to bob-vin

    First, JPEG uses lossy compression and you cannot tell the encoder to preserve particular RGB values (at least not in Photoshop or any other software that I've used.)

     

    Second, your sample PSD has Adobe RGB profile, so if you export to an image with a different profile (e.g. sRGB is normally recommended and expected for Web images) then you should expect RGB values to be changed to preserve appearance despite change of profile. However, your specific 245 245 220 will be unchanged in a conversion from Adobe RGB to sRGB, but there is the JPEG problem mentioned above.

     

    I suggest you ensure a document has the required profile for the export file before putting specific RGB values in pixels. Export to PNG, without converting to another profile, for a lossless compressed image with guaranteed RGB values. Have you been instructed to supply JPEG and only JPEG?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 9:49 AM   in reply to bob-vin

    I was wrong that converting Adobe RGB to sRGB will not change the (245 245 220) pixels. Eyedropper was set to average 5x5 pixels. The conversion results in a random distribution of (245 245 220), (245 245 219) and (246 246 220). Probably a dithered conversion. So make sure the document is sRGB before filling pixels with (245 245 220).

     

    The JPEG encoder is changing (245 245 220) to (245 245 221), anyway.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 10:04 AM   in reply to bob-vin

    The dither can be disabled in Color Settings so the conversion doesn't change (245 245 220) but I don't recommend you do that. I do recommend you make sure the document has sRGB profile before filling pixels with (245 245 220) or any other value that has to be present.

     

    Regarding the JPEG encoder changing (245 245 220) to (245 245 221), there is nothing you can do to prevent that, as far as I know. Ask the website people if PNG is acceptable because it will preserve RGB values.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 10:15 AM   in reply to bob-vin

    No problem!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 10:27 AM   in reply to bob-vin

    I'm giving up on this for now.

     

    why not just take a few minutes to figure it out

     

    Photoshop Edit> Convert to Profile: sRGB BEFORE you set the Hex

    Photoshop File> Save for Web... DO NOT EMBED THE PROFILE

     

    that will give you color "consistency" between Ps-html Hex (not color accuracy) in all web browsers — the Hex and Source RGB numbers pass straight through to the monitor unchanged -- the problem with tagging the Photoshop graphic is Safari (color managed browsers) will Convert the tagged colors and will pass the html colors through unchanged (causing a mismatch)

     

    this came up recently:

     

    certain specified Hex colors are inbetween colors in Photoshop Save For Web .jpg process -- try .png (it seems to handle SFW Hex more accurately)

     

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4740901

     

     


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 10:50 AM   in reply to bob-vin

    It seems that you're not going to get the 245 245 220 maintained by JPEG, regardless of profiles. PNG is the solution if the client will accept that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 10:52 AM   in reply to bob-vin

    Well, he already said the same as me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 11:05 AM   in reply to conroy

    and that Ps>SFW>Hex.jpg error revelation (and .png work around) came straight from one of the Adobe geniuses on a somewhat identical post

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 11:39 AM   in reply to gator soup

    I bet nobody at Home Depot has realised that they are being supplied JPEG without exactly (245 245 220). Can you eyeball the joins in this image (which is PNG, of course)?

     

    245-245-219-221.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 11:55 AM   in reply to conroy

    I bet nobody at Home Depot has realised that they are being supplied JPEG without exactly (245 245 220)

     

    yeah, might want to point that out (and if they don't want the .png option) i would suggest they change their Hex spec ever so slightly to one that translates proper to .jpg (like 245 245 221, i take it this one does work .jpg?)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 12:01 PM   in reply to bob-vin

    Maybe HD can tell you which software their web designers recommend for outputting (245 245 220) in JPEG.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 12:12 PM   in reply to bob-vin

    you are far from appearing stupid

    i didn't believe it myself till i saw it with my own eyes, but you have an Adobe engineer as a source reference

     

    and after explaining the problem, conroy's suggestion falls right in line "Maybe HD can tell you which software (and compression setting) their web designers recommend for outputting (245 245 220) in JPEG."

     

    you spotted the problem, researched it, explained it and the workaround, and then asked for direction -- that's how a professional operates, IMO, good luck

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 12:28 PM   in reply to bob-vin

    bob-vin wrote:

     

    ... I need to make jpegs with that color background behind white product!...

    There is no guarantee that a color from your image will match coded color of a web page on all browsers because the different browsers treat untagged images differently. If it is me I'll explain this to the client and will offer to use coded color for the background and the image as a transparent png in front of it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 12:34 PM   in reply to bob-vin

    bob-vin wrote:

     

    My images were, in fact, rejected! Of course it is silly but that is what I'm dealing with...

    Well you are dealing with idiot clients if they want the impossible from you. Just tell them that what they want is not going to happen and find clients who know what they are doing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 12:53 PM   in reply to emil emil

    There is no guarantee that a color from your image will match coded color of a web page on all browsers

     

    assuming you can get a Hex color properly saved in Photoshop untagged sRGB jpg, and specified on a web page -- you should be able "match" the page Hex with Photoshop Hex in ALL web browsers -- or am i missing something

     

    i am not talking about Photoshop color-managed type "accuracy" -- i am talking about color "consistancy" where the Photoshop Hex value "matches" the page Hex color

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 12:54 PM   in reply to bob-vin

    bob-vin wrote:

     

    Not good advice! You obviously don't work in the real world.

    Yes, my clients are from Mars What is obvious is that you are not going to work for HD, sorry if this makes you sad, it is not your fault.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 12:59 PM   in reply to gator soup

    It will be fine in the default settings of most browsers but not in all possible cases if that's the goal of the client.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 1:27 PM   in reply to emil emil

    not in all possible cases

     

    think about that for a moment (i think in all possible cases as i stated)

     

    with the exception of Firefox with its Value 1 (or other options) enabled

     

    if ALL web browsers send untagged/unmanaged RGB numbers straight to the monitor - how they display depends on the monitor space (showing the difference between sRGB and the monitor profile)

     

    since HTML Hex and Photoshop untagged sRGB Hex are both unmanaged - in theory - they should always "match"

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 1:19 PM   in reply to bob-vin

    bob-vin wrote:

     

    Thought of that. I will work on it but I don't work directly with them and I certainly am not going to tie up my client on it. I have asked for a contact whom I can reach there, though.

    Here is what the fuss is all about. Reallu awful "beige" anyway.

    Provence 48 in. Kitchen Island in Satin White with Maple Top Tuscany 42 in. Kitchen Island in Satin White with Maple Top

    I dont' see any coded background to be matched on these pages. Or are they going to change that?

    http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-203768016/h_d2/ProductDisplay? catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=white+kitchen+island&storeId=10051#. ULUsxteFImU

    Honestly, it is hard to believe that the HD marketing department opened your images in Photoshop and started to measure with the eyedropper the values of your background. I suspect it is your middleman who has no clue but they are good at taking jobs. Learn how to market yourself and take jobs that deal directly with the end client.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 1:34 PM   in reply to gator soup

    gator soup wrote:

     

    ...

    with the exception of Firefox with its Value 1

    ...

    That's what I head in mind and I'm assuming that other color managed browsers can be also user set but I might be wrong about this. And the other thing is no one knows in the future versions of any browser how the images could be treated. My advice is a general idea that while the source of the color is different (code vs image) there is no 100% guarantee that the match won't break under certain circumstances.

    Regardless of this, your suggestion in general is safe and is a usual practice when matching code with images as long as the file format is something like png.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 1:49 PM   in reply to bob-vin

    bob-vin wrote:

     

    [...] Here is what the fuss is all about. Reallu awful "beige" anyway.

    Provence 48 in. Kitchen Island in Satin White with Maple Top Tuscany 42 in. Kitchen Island in Satin White with Maple Top

     

    Beige that is (245 245 221), unsurprisingly since the images are JPEG, so why the heck are they rejecting your images for being (245 245 221)?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2012 1:47 PM   in reply to emil emil

    yeah what you said

     

    the proof is to create a sRGB document in Photoshop

    fill it with your Hex value

    Save For Web as .jpg .png (do not include the ICC Profile)

     

    drag the saved file icon into your open browser window to open it in the browser

     

    then, back in Photoshop, using the original color-managed sRGB source image

    go to View> Proof Setup: Monitor RGB

    that move should "match" Photoshop to the web browser

     

    if you could set up the .jpg or .png on a web page filled with the same Hex - that would be even more convincing

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points