I doubt it has anything to do with your camera. It's more likely a change in the workspace settings, subject matter, display hardware/profile and/or new camera profile.
Once you use another camera, Camera Raw defaults to standard develop and workspace settings. Any custom settings for your 5DII won't be copied. It might be worth comparing the two sets of workspace settings and develop defaults, to see if anything is different.
As regards browsers, this is a bit of a minefield. Firefox works well with colour profiles, but its default settings are not ideal: gfx.color_management.mode defaults to 2, when 1 works better but uses more resources. Internet Explorer supports tagged images but ignores display profiles, and so only works properly on sRGB-calibrated monitors; colours are far too vivid on modern wide-gamut monitors. I have no idea about Chrome. Safari works properly, IIRC.
I have seen people producing weird colour effects through a basic misunderstanding of colour management principles, assigning colour profiles instead of converting to them, for example. If you talk us through your settings and workflow, someone might be able to point out a problem.
How did you save your JPG?
It may be nothi9ng, but looking at your JPG in EXIF Tool, and comparing what is there when opening and resaving with PS-CS6, I can see that there is no Color Space tag set to sRGB in your CS5 version, so some programs might be confused, as is Windows since it leaves Color Representation blank, but if the programs are actually looking at the contents of your embedded display profile then they shouldn’t be doing something different.
For me on my regular-non-photo-job computer, your example image on its webpage look indistinguishable in IE and FF and CoolNovo (Chromium successor) while Chrome shows something very slightly different. My display profile is tweaked from sRGB using Windows 7’s simple-minded tool which could be the Chrome difference. My monitors are cheap LCDs the company bought for us.
I think the issue is your wide-gamut monitor not being supported by the browsers, fully, and your seeing a lot of difference. For at least some of us with close-to-sRGB monitor profiles things are very similar.
I have exactly the same problem! It's killing me. I have some wedding photos to publish and now I'm scared of doing so.
Looks fine in Windows Photo Viewer, Lightroom, Photoshop and even Firefox.
Looks over saturated and grossly red in Chrome, ACDSee, Internet Explorer etc
All photos taken with Canon 5D III, loaded into Lightroom 4, processed and exported as JPGs with sRGB colour space at 95% quality.
What the hell is happening? How can one file look so different in so many applications?? It's a JPG with sRGB for goodness sake!
What's at fault here? Me? Canon? Adobe? Microsoft? God? :-/
PLEASE HELP! :-(
Here's what I ended up doing after a lot of experimentation - forget sRGB. Do NOT convert to sRGB when creating jpgs from photoshop. Work in the Adobe RGB (1998) space, and when you "output for web & devices" DO NOT check the "convert to sRGB" box. They will then be formatted as Adobe RBG jpg files, and will look much more predictable on all platforms. Chrome & IE will still be a bit more saturated with reds & blues, but not nearly as offensive as with sRGB.
I had also set my working space to Pro RGB & that seemed to aggrevate the problem as well, so I went back to Adobe RGB as the working space.
I read that the new Chrome beta version will read color profiles, as well as the new IE 10, but they aren't out yet & it will be a long time before others get them. I'm not sure if it's a factor of the new raw file format in the 5DIII or not.
Please reply to this post after experimentation & let me know what you find.
Thanks for verifying that I'm not crazy!
Are you are using a wide-gamut monitor and some of your applications where things look very saturated, are not set up to display things correctly using your monitor profile. To confirm this, see if it looks ok on another computer that doesn’t have a wide-gamut monitor. Do you have access to one of those, or can you use your monitor in some sort of sRGB emulation mode and reset your system display profile?
It is a known problem with IE that it does not take your monitor profile into account when displaying JPGs and some other applications may be entirely non-color-managed. Do you see the same garish color saturation when viewing images from the internet?
If you want, you can try exporting a virtual copy of an image where the faces have been obscured with an adjustment brush or spotting tool, and putting it online for others to look at to see whether things are oversaturated or subdued, or put it out on dropbox.com for others to download.
Thank you very much for the super-fast response. See if this works...
Full size export, edited their faces of course, uploaded to google.
This file in google looks good if i save and open with apps such as windows photo viewer (less saturated copy is correct)
Gonna try some other PCs now.
I have now changed my monitor calibration color management thing in Windows to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and the jpg now looks bad in all applications. :-/ How am I supposed to know what is correct???
0001_5.jpg file out on Google Docs is untagged according to ExifTool, no profile name nor embedded profile.
It shows up as very saturated (the left in your side-by-side) on my system both in Windows Photo Viewer and in Chrome and IE.
My computer does not have a wide-gamut monitor and the monitor profile is close to sRGB.
If what you’ve posted on Google Docs is what your JPGs are like on your computer, then it would appear that you are exporting untagged sRGB images that some things show as correct if the default profile is your own monitor profile but others display as if the image is sRGB (which browsers are supposed to do with untagged images) and show up as oversaturated.
It seems that the image on Google Docs is not converted to the sRGB profile and does not have the sRGB profile embedded in it. Can you provide one that does have both of those things, or if Google Docs is somehow transforming the image, then if it is as small as the one on Google Docs (240x240) then just attach it to a forum message using the camera icon at the top of the text window on the web version of the forums.
Appologies, try this...
it's a zip file for the image.
This time i exported the image as jpg, with sRGB (specified in the LR Export window). I've included ALL meta data (not just copyright).
Then opened in photoshop, blocked the faces, and saved again.
I notice... If I put my monitor to ProPhoto or any wide gamut then the image looks ok. If I put my monitor colour profile to sRGB then it looks a mess, even in LR.
Should I maybe be using my monitor in sRGB profile when editing photos then? :-S
How was the JPG created that you posted on Google Docs?
It appears to be still in your wide-gamut monitor’s colorspace (not having been converted to sRGB nor 240x240 as I previously stated), but saved as untagged.
If you feel you are saving with an embedded color profile then perhaps Google Docs is modifying the image and to avoid that try uploading a ZIP of the JPG if Google Docs allows that type of file, and if it doesn’t, then use some other sharing service like www.dropbox.com. You could also just reduce the size of the image and attach it to a forum message as previously described.
This should work. This is the image. it does have the sRGB profile embedded in it. If my monitor is set to a wide gamut then it looks fine (Like ProPhoto).
If i switch my colour management thing to sRGB profile then the image is screwed up.
My issue now is... should I be working on my photography using sRGB for my monitor?
Ok, you figured out the ZIP thing as I was asking you to do it.
The image extracted from the ZIP looks very saturated, and now does have an sRGB profile embedded in it. However, if your monitor profile is already set to sRGB then no change will have happened. Can you set your monitor profile back to the wide-gamut one how it started out (and your monitor, itself, back to whatever mode it was in when you profiled it) and do the process again? It still may be that your previous monitor profile is affecting how things look if PS is still using that, somehow, even if you’ve set your system to use sRGB.
And can I clarify if the actual color of the dress was bright red or if it was a dull-antique light-rust color? The screenshot you original posted looks ok-saturated on the left (with the dress being red) and very antique-dull-rust on the right. Maybe the screen-capture looks different on your system compared to mine if it is untagged and has color numbers in terms of your wide gamut monitor profile. Once your system is back to using a wide-gamut color profile as thigns were before you started this trhead, It would be helpful to have this screen capture opened in Photoshop and converted to sRGB and saved as a JPG and zipped on Google Docs. The PNG that is on Image Shack is untagged so the colors may look different for you than they do for others.
You should not be working with your monitor profile set to sRGB unless your monitor is also operating in an sRGB mode, and then probably not, either—it was more of an experiment but is probably confusing things. It is better to use a hardware profiler to create a custom color profile, and have things color-managed properly and export as sRGB with embedded color profiles.
Reset your color profiles and color settings back to how they were before you started this thread, and don’t strip the color profile information from your images and start again. Also post an sRGB JPG of your screenshot, not a PNG. I think we can figure out what is wrong, but using an untagged PNG for your screenshot and not having a color profile embedded in your first example may have just confused things.
I think the problem has just been converting my images which I worked on in ProPhoto profile to sRGB. It's lost a lot of the quality and colour (of course) but too excessively to be acceptable.
If I put my monitor back to a wide gamut (i stupidly forgot to write down what it was, so i use ProPhoto for example) then the images saved as sRGB look fine again (until I open them in Chrome/IE/ACDSee).
If I leave my monitor in sRGB then it's bad in all applications.
So I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that I should be using my monitor in sRGB profile mode when editing photos so I know how they will appear later when converted to sRGB. No?
You should be able to use your monitor in wide-gamut mode with the proper color profile and operate your Photoshop with ProPhotoRGB and then export as sRGB and have things look ok, as long as you know which previewing applications aren’t capable of displaying things properly on a wide-gamut monitor and avoid those.
If the lady’s dress was red then the sRGB JPGs you’ve posted are ok. If it was light-rust-brown colored then they have not been ok.
Yes the dress was indeed red, but not super saturated as Chrome/IE/ACDSee show it.
Here's a test i did...
Exported from Lightroom with ProPhoto colour profile
Image shows FINE (!!!) in all apps
Opened in Photoshop which immediately tells me to convert to sRGB, which i do and save a new file.
The newly converted file does NOT show correctly in Chrome/IE/ACDSee but looks fine in other apps.
If I change my monitor profile back to sRGB then ALL apps show the image as over saturated.
It's the conversion from ProPhoto to sRGB that's screwing everything up. :-( Soooo tired of this now (really appreciate your help)
For reference I've inluded what I see in the side-by-side image you originally posted, to ask if the righthand image is really the correct once, since it is in Windows Photo Viewer:
To me the lefthand ACDsee image looks an ok red or maybe slightly too bright, while the righthand Windows Photos Viewer image looks like a dull rust color and not red at all. If you say she was wearing a red dress not a rust-colored dress then the Windows Photo Viewer image on my system looks wrong while the ACDsee image looks more ok. If you see the righthand image as red not rust then your browser is not doing color-management properly so can't be relied on for proofing anything.
What model is your monitor and is it a special wide-gamut one or just something old or cheap? Have you used a hardware calibrator (iOne, Colormunki, etc) to create a custom profile for your monitor or are you using a manufacturer's one or what are you using (when it's not experimentally set to sRGB)? ProPhotoRGB is not a monitor profile, so you'll need to figure out what it was, before, if that's what you're setting it to, now.
Converting from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB shouldn't be screwing anything up, so something is still wrong, somewhere.
From the images you posted above - the correct red colour is somewhere inbetween what I see in your screenshot. It was red (just not "in your face saturated" red)
I have 2x Acer P241w. Not calibrated with any hardware, no.
I have a profile from the manufacturer I have been using before (i think) and am using it now. it's wider than sRGB
The manufacturer’s profile may or may not be quite correct. If you are doing photography that others pay for the results from, then you should invest in a hardware calibrator to make sure things are as correct as possible when viewed or printed elsewhere.
One of the Spyder series is what I see many people using. I see others mention the iOne/EyeOne and a few Colormunki, with some people also needing printer calibration be handled by their calibrator for added expense. If you are sending out your prints, only, or people are ordering them, online, then that is not a concern, but getting accurate color on your monitor is, and being able to trust that the colors you’re seeing in your color-managed products like Photoshop and Lightroom will carry over to clients viewing sRGB JPGs on their cheap monitors, and also carry over to offsite prints, is a concern.
The initial problem description of colors becoming oversaturated suggests a problem with your monitor’s color profile not matching what it actually is displaying, as well as a problem with some non-color-managed applications showing weird things, and perhaps a problem with the output profile from LR or PS not being set and embedded as sRGB.
Setting your monitor to the manufacturer’s profile is a good first step as long as your monitor, itself, using the on-screen-menus of the monitor is set to the proper mode that matches what your profile is doing. Maybe this is a Native mode, not a User or sRGB mode. Some manufacturer’s monitor profiles are actually incompatible with LR and cause problems, though, which is another reason to create your own custom profile.
The reviews I see for your particular monitor say it is very bright. Are you using it at maximum brightness when you are editing? A hardware calibration process usually also has a step or two where you set your monitor to an ok contrast and brightness setting, rather than maxed out. Is your room lighting (ambient lighting) very bright or normal overhead office fluorescents or very dark.
at the moment nobody pays, i'm just studying photography and doing weddings/parties for friends for free. I will try to borrow a calbibrator from someone.
So would that explain why my photos get so badly changed when converting from my monitor profile / prophoto to srgb? it's incredibly different and I didn't expect that (just expected a loss of some high end colours)
I have it set to 50% brightness and i have my room lights off (working almost in the dark now).
If I had my monitor profile configured correctly and I worked in ProPhoto... then exported to sRGB, would i correctly then see minimal colour change?
Right now I'm re-doing all my photos using the sRGB monitor profile and I'm going to see how these photos then look on several PCs before I provide to my friend who I did the wedding for.
Feel free to add me on FB and I'll show you the album when I'm done. facebook.com/gemeenaapje
Thanks again, really do appreciate all your time this evening. I'm off to bed now and will pick this up tomorrow. Good night!
The monitor calibration will help to insure that the color you see on your screen is what printers and others will see when they look at the same photo. It will NOT fix the sRGB problem. My issue, that started this thread, is present even though I religously calibrate my monitor with the Spyder Pro 4. The calibration will eliminate one variable in this maze of post processing.
It is good to get practice with friends, and it is personally important to get the photos right even though they are not generating income with which to buy a hardware profiler.
Colors being off when you convert will happen if your monitor doesn’t match your monitor profile. Using a hardware calibrator will help fix that piece.
Setting your monitor profile to sRGB will only make things better if your monitor is actually close to sRGB itself. If it is not, then using an sRGB profile will only mask the problems while you’re working on the photos, and everyone else will see something off, which will actually make things worse, because you won’t know anything is wrong.
Using a browser or other photo-viewer that is not color-profile aware will also make you think your colors are messed up when they really aren’t.
Testing your photos on other people’s computers with your monitor profile set as sRGB will help determine if it is a monitor-profile problem or a non-color-aware photo-viewer problem.
To answer your specific question: “If I had my monitor profile configured correctly and I worked in ProPhoto... then exported to sRGB, would i correctly then see minimal colour change?” Yes there would see only minimal change, and the change would be that the sRGB version might show slightly LESS saturation or slight hue-shifts as the Adobe Color Engine tried to fit the wide color gamut of ProPhotoRGB into the smaller color gamut of sRGB. It usually does a good job, though. Since you’re seeing a wide variation in color and the sRGB versions are MORE saturated, that suggests a bad color-profile mismatch somewhere.
wsmithjr, thank you very much for your answer in post nr 4.
I was having strange banding/posterization problems (especially in shadow areas) when I exported images from Lightroom to Photoshop (Profoto RGB workspace) for optimalisation and then converting to sRGB for web.
In Google Chrome these problems starting showing up. Changing workspace to Adobe RGB and then use Save for Web (and unchecking "convert to sRGB") made the problems go away.
But I still don't know why this is happening, can anybody explain this to me?
The ProPhotoRGB colorspace is wider than most others so you need to use 16-bits out of ACR into PS to fit all the colors into it. If you are using ProPhotoRGB and 8-bits that could be part of the problem.
When you convert to sRGB in Photoshop you should also be using the Edit / Convert Profile... first in 16-bits and then and Edit / Mode / 8-bit which allows for dithering of the colors.
I believe the Save for Web only truncates without dithering which will lead to most posterization problems.
Thanks for the reply. Well I actually already use those steps to produce my output. But after some further testing I narrowed it down (in my case) to the "embed color profile" checkbox in Safe for Web. Chrome & Firefox don't seem to like this (IE9 and Safari are fine). I am using the Mogrify plugin in Lightroom now to strip the profile from output files for web purposes.
Are you saying that Chrome and FF show banding in your save-for-web image if you embed a color profile but that the problem disappears if you don't embed a color profile? Browsers are supposed to assume the color-numbers in the image are sRGB if there is no embedded profile so nothing should change by removing it.
Do other computer users across the internet see these problems or is it just something local on your computer? Do you have an example image online for others here to see?
Hearing that IE works is a bit troubling becuase IE specifically ignores any dsiplay profile on the computer and always outputs sRGB even if the display profile is different. This leads to oversatured colors on a wide-gamut monitor. As an internet standard, browsers are supposed to assume sRGB if there is no embedded color profile so having one there shouldn't change anything.
Also it doesn't seem like you'd need to use Save for Web if you're using prior PS operations to do the color profile and bit-depth conversions, and you also have the option to not embed a color profile in the images you save out of PS so if things are aready sRGB there shouldnt' be a need to use Mogrify, unless that is for old work that you haven't modified your workflow to handle.
Thats exactly what is happening. Chrome&Firefox display the image without posterization only if I strip the color profile.
Look at the following picture to see the difference (screenshot from chrome, bottom=embedded profile):
Also you can download the images from here to test for yourself:
profile embedded: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D6620681_4982553_145734
profile not embedded: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D6620681_4982553_145746
You're right that I don't need to do the SFW after those steps, it's just a persistant habit to use it for JPEGs
btw same happens when exporting images directly from Lightroom. So in the export dialog when I convert to sRGB I use Mogrify to strip the profile.
The blacks are deeper on my computer for the embedded-profile one in Chrome, too, but my display profile is merely a gamma-corrected (via Windows 7 simple-minded color profiling) sRGB-based profile so the change is not as severe and therefore I don’t see any posterization just the blacks being dark like they should be.
My analysis would be that your display profile has posterization at the dark end (too few of steps) so less sophisticated color engines in Chrome and FF are bringing those to light. IE doesn’t even attempt to use the display profile so doesn’t care and my computer’s display profile has a less severe dark adjustment and so I don’t see the issue, either.
The issue won’t happen for everyone or even most people, probably, but for your system with its particular display profile, you have to choose between seeing the display-profile-based posterized colors or the wrong-but-smooth colors.
Where does your display profile come from and how expensive is your monitor?
Same as yours, gamma corrected. My monitor is a Dell 2709WFP.
I'll look into using a better calibrated profile. Wouldn't it be better to never embed the profile so it won't affect other people's perception of my published images when they are using a 'bad' display profile?
It is possible that you monitor may just be too bright so the display profile has to make everything a bit darker and is trying too hard at the dark end, or you’re adjusting the blacks more steeply in LR than necessary.
You might try recalibrating including changing the Brightness and/or Contrast settings of your monitor and see if things look any better or if you did that method, already, perhaps set your monitor Brightness and Contrast to their defaults and redo the calibration.
I redid the calibration just now on mine, making the overall gamma a little darker than it had been—my monitor has terrible viewing angle variations because it’s just for coding not pictures and I tried a little harder, and now I see barely any difference in the images in Chrome, either.
Also, if your gamma-based display-profile started with the manufacturer’s monitor profile then you might assign sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as your default monitor profile and redo the calibration, to avoid any problems with the manufacturer’s profile.
Whether you trust untagged sRGB images or ones with the profile embedded depends on if you feel everyone’s bad monitor profile is bad the same way as yours or not, if not then maybe another browser isn’t going to assume sRGB and things will look very wrong for them. It is better to get your monitor’s brightness, contrast, and profile as correct as possible so you won’t have weird things originating from your editing because things don’t look right for you and you can’t tell.
Some folks say images published on the web should converted to sRGB and saved without a color profile, so that they'll be right up there with the appearance of other non-color-managed images on poorly set up systems. That seems wrong to me.
It seems to me instead that one should consider publishing images tagged with either the sRGB or Adobe RGB color profile and let the people viewing them worry about how well set up their system is for displaying color images. If they actually care about the color of things they'll probably buy good gear and may even calibrate and profile it - or at worst use the factory settings and provided profile.
Most browsers now interpret image color profiles, though only one I know of does full color-management of both images and web page elements: FireFox, though even then it needs a special non-default configuration setting.
But alas the color-management world is not getting better. Color-management doesn't really seem to be advancing with portable devices.
There is one universal truth, though: Color-management is difficult to discuss on a forum.
You're absolutely right.