Skip navigation

“Save For Web” Problems After Calibrating Display

Mar 7, 2012 7:32 AM

  Latest reply: Noel Carboni, Mar 8, 2012 6:11 PM
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 2:30 PM   in reply to Rik Ramsay

    All colors are presumed to be defined in the sRGB color space

    Exactly. "Presumed" is the operative word. That's the smoking gun. Not sRGB, but "presumed" to conform to sRGB.

     

    Try out a wide gamut monitor once and see what presume means when there is no profile.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 3:16 PM   in reply to Rik Ramsay

    >> I don't believe the OPs problem had anything to do with the monitor calibration

     

    i think it does

     

    once Photoshop strips the sRGB profile in a default-configuration Save for Web (SFW) environment — the color shifts — ie, the sRGB numbers are being sent straight through to the monitor just like Web browsers do — this is easy to prove in Photoshop by View> Proof Setup: Monitor RGB

     

    the reason the shift (or problem) doesn't occur in the OP's work around is because he set his monitor profile to sRGB (sRGB an exact match to his source and monitor spaces)

     

    as i understand the theory, all web browsers (except Firefox V1) do not alter untagged Photoshop .jpg files or hex colors specified in CSS and HTML — web browsers simply send the RGB 'numbers' straight through to the monitor unaltered — the "presumption" is that they are in the sRGB color space for display on an sRGB-compliant device

     

    the problem or changes occur when monitor space is different from sRGB

     

    is this not correct?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,482 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 3:44 PM   in reply to gator soup
    gator soup wrote:


    as i understand the theory, all web browsers (except Firefox V1) do not alter untagged Photoshop .jpg files or hex colors specified in CSS and HTML — web browsers simply send the RGB 'numbers' straight through to the monitor unaltered — the "presumption" is that they are in the sRGB color space for display on an sRGB-compliant device

     

    This is not theory, but observed fact:

     

    • Internet Explorer assumes untagged images and HTML elements are sRGB and that the display is sRGB.  Thus untagged image and HTML colors are passed through without color management when being sent to the display.
    • Firefox with gfx.color_management.mode set to 2 (the default) passes untagged images and HTML colors through without color-management.
    • Firefox set to mode 1 assumes untagged images (as well as HTML elements) are sRGB, and transforms the colors to the PRIMARY monitor's color space.
    • Safari passes untagged images and HTML colors through to the monitor without color-management.

     

    I don't know about Chrome and the others.  I should probably check them out to complete my knowledge.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 4:05 PM   in reply to macchiato.

    I have no problems matching image color to css color. A huge number of web designs depend on this. I do it all the time, with a calibrated monitor. So the answer is no, you do not need to choose between a calibrated monitor and css/image color matching. Your "success" using the sRGB canned profile for both display and image tells you nothing.  Sure, the colors match, but you don't have control of the color.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 5:09 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    thanks for the feedback, Noel, i was pretty sure i had that part of the theory correct -- seeing is believing

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 6:54 AM   in reply to macchiato.

    Hi guys,

    I don't have time to read the whole thread and it may have already been explained, but because it is still going on, I'll make a guess. If the problem of the OP is to match in a browser a color of an image to a color created by code, for example, a color in an image that matches the background of a web page created by html color, then find out the hex values of the html color, use it, and save it in your image without any eventual color management conversions that can modify the color values. This will match the color of the image to the color of the coded html color. For this task (matching colors) no proper color management is needed. Proper color management is needed only if you want to share or see properly intended colors. In this case the priority is to match colors with non color managed display which will be displayed differently on every monitor. Only images are color managed, interface elements created by coded color are not color managed - even in the Photoshop's interface.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 9:36 AM   in reply to emil emil

    What use is a color match when you don't have control of the color? Maybe you don't care about this, but designers do.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 12:03 PM   in reply to Gary Politzer

    This is mostly used when you have an image on a web page and you want the image to match html elements like the background for which unfortunately you don't have any color control.

    As a designer you may decide that matching the color of the image to the color of the background  is more important than matching the color of the image on the destination monitors to the way you see it on your monitor.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 12:17 PM   in reply to emil emil

    Designers are of course aware that they have no control over destination monitors, but that is no reason not to use a calibrated display. You don't need to abandon display calibration in order to match css color to image color. My point is, using a calibrated display is a designer's best shot at having control over color, while being fully aware that he or she only has control over their own output, not the destination display.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 12:22 PM   in reply to Gary Politzer

    I agree with you, I didn't intend to suggest that calibration and proper color management is not important, I simply stated that for that particular task - to match a color of an image to an html element, the proper color management including accurate monitor color profile is not needed which explains as to why the OP had no problems before proper color calibration.  And as I also said, color management is important if yo want to share colors as intended.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 12:36 PM   in reply to emil emil

    Yes, it does explain why the OP had no problems before calibrating the monitor. But once the monitor is calibrated,simply converting the image to the sRGB profile before Saving for Web also gives the desired result. And in fact, Photoshop CS5 on my Mac defaults to that profile conversion via a checkbox in the Save for Web dialog, so the process would work even if the user was unaware of it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,482 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 1:16 PM   in reply to Gary Politzer

    Heh, one man's simply is another's more complicated than I'd like to deal with

     

    I think one (of several) roots of conflict in color-management discussions comes from the apparent fact that many folks truly believe that they have made the right choices with regard to the many tradeoffs...  For them, given their needs at that moment, they may well have made the right choices.  It's not always easy to put oneself in others' shoes.

     

    The problem arises precisely from the difference between their right choices (well defined if fleeting) and the right choices (a myth).

     

    What was that old saying by National Geographic that seems to apply?  There are no easy answers, only intelligent choices.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 4:55 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    And my point is that a person who presents a problem like the OP presented will not be able to make an intelligent choice without learning a little more about Color Management. If we are going to recommend or tolerate the use of a generic profile for the display profile, then why discuss Color Management at all? We had this discussion over and over on the old Mac forum. People would show up saying stuff like, "Color Management is a hoax, just disable it and everything works!" Then they would get raked over the coals by some real curmudgeons. Those were the days;)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,482 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 5:43 PM   in reply to Gary Politzer

    Gary Politzer wrote:

     

    If we are going to ... tolerate

     

    "We" (of which there is no reasonable definition) don't have any authority to "not tolerate" anything.  It's precisely that kind of thinking that breeds said curmudgeons, and I'll wager few folks leave a "raking" by same with much of an education.

     

    Perhaps we should just try to share our knowlege instead of trying to tell people what to do?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 5:54 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Perhaps we should just try to share our knowlege instead of trying to tell people what to do?

    Yes, since that is hopefully the purpose of this forum. It is especially difficult when the topic is Color Management, because the topic is so confusing, and people get very opinionated about it. My own understanding of the subject is pretty rudimentary, yet took me years to wrap my mind around. The only thing that really bothers me is seeing bad advice passed off as good. I've seen a lot of this over the years in other forums, not so much in Adobe's forums.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,482 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 6:11 PM   in reply to Gary Politzer

    I don't know whether you're trying to say that I or someone here has given "bad" advice, but if so the best way to deal with that is not to call it "bad", but to debate it in terms of what will and won't happen technically (which has been done quite admirably in this thread).

     

    This is really no different than saying the choice of "Mac" vs. "PC" is "bad" or "good".  While it's easy to become polarized, my choice is every bit as valid as your choice, even though we may have chosen differently.  That's just the way it is in a complicated world.

     

    A month or two ago in a fit of half light-hearted creativity I tried to categorize color-management knowledge into levels.  Once one climbs a few steps into new levels of understanding one realizes that every setting has a reason for being, and there really are no "bad" choices, any more than there is a "best" choice.  For every rule of thumb at one level that says something is "bad", there are perfectly good reasons at another level for doing precisely that.

     

    The "curmudgeons" that you speak of might say "just buy a measurement device and use its software to calibrate and profile your system, then only trust what you see in Photoshop", and that is the "best" or "right" way to do things.  For many folks with mainstream needs, that's pretty good advice.  But we all need to understand that there isn't just one way to get there from here.  As a GPS system might say...  "Recalculating" 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

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