-
1. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ssprengel May 18, 2014 1:13 PM (in response to ronze98)Exports from LR should work the same as Save for Web if you use the sRGB profile when Exporting.
It sounds like you have a wide-gamut monitor and some of your browsers are not fully color-managed.
For viewing your images, use FireFox in Color_Management Mode 1 as outlined, here:
-
2. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ronze98 May 18, 2014 2:46 PM (in response to ssprengel)If I use Internet explorer to view the image it looks fine. But I can not control what browser or what monitor the users view the image when they visit my site. So the best solution is to simulate the 'save for web' behavior as photoshop in lightroom. During export the color space is already set to sRGB, but the result is still an over saturated image when viewed on firefox. Is there another way to achieve my objective in LR?
-
3. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ssprengel May 18, 2014 4:53 PM (in response to ronze98)If you are Exporting as sRGB in LR then you have done as much as you can. It is up to the viewing users to have a color-calibrated monitor and a color-managed viewer. If they don't then nothing you do will make things look right for them, except by accident.
What are your Save for Web options? Can we see a screenshot?
-
4. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
areohbee May 18, 2014 6:46 PM (in response to ssprengel)ssprengel wrote:
If you are Exporting as sRGB in LR then you have done as much as you can. It is up to the viewing users to have a color-calibrated monitor and a color-managed viewer. If they don't then nothing you do will make things look right for them
Most users don't have a properly color-managed browser (ugh..). However, if you use a properly color-managed flash-based viewing "applet" hosted by your browser, then color will be perfect (to the extent that the monitor allows, whether exported with sRGB or AdobeRGB) on all systems where it's viewed, regardless of the browser, since flash bypasses browser color-management (or lack of) in favor of it's own implementation.
If flash dies it will be the saddest moment in technology history, in my opinion. It is most definitely my favorite Adobe technology.
Rob
-
5. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ssprengel May 18, 2014 6:51 PM (in response to areohbee)HTML5 is replacing most Flash applications. iOS tablets and phones doesn't support Flash, and newer Android OSes don't support Flash.
-
6. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
areohbee May 18, 2014 7:00 PM (in response to ssprengel)ssprengel wrote:
iOS tablets and phones doesn't support Flash, and newer Android OSes don't support Flash.
I've heard..
ssprengel wrote:
HTML5 is replacing most Flash applications.
Flash is still the best choice, for the time being, for displaying photos, if you don't need to support iOS, because it's the only way to assure proper color.
Maybe in the future that will change, but if you want to assure your users see the same color you do, there is only one way I know (other than downloading the images for local display I mean, which is actually another option to consider) - and it ain't HTML 5 .
Rob
-
-
8. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ssprengel May 18, 2014 7:03 PM (in response to areohbee)And if they’re using an iPad or a phone, it ain’t Flash.
The OP’s issue is that IE seems to work when Save for Web is used. That is likely the result of two wrongs cancelling themselves out, but until we see what the Save for Web options are, exactly, it’s hard to know.
-
9. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ssprengel May 18, 2014 7:07 PM (in response to ronze98)In your Save for Web you are converting to sRGB but you’re not embedded the color profile. That is an accident waiting to happen. If the images look ok in a browser then it is just luck. Try enabling Embed Color Profile and see if that changes how the images look in various browsers—I’d expect them to be similar to LR when sRGB is used for exporting.
-
10. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
areohbee May 18, 2014 7:16 PM (in response to ssprengel)ssprengel wrote:
And if they’re using an iPad or a phone, it ain’t Flash.
Got it Steve, which is why I said: "if you don't need to support iOS".
I'm willing to go away now .
~R.
-
11. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
Jao vdL May 18, 2014 8:54 PM (in response to ronze98)ronze98 wrote:
If I use Internet explorer to view the image it looks fine. But I can not control what browser or what monitor the users view the image when they visit my site. So the best solution is to simulate the 'save for web' behavior as photoshop in lightroom. During export the color space is already set to sRGB, but the result is still an over saturated image when viewed on firefox. Is there another way to achieve my objective in LR?
This is almost certainly a bad monitor profile. Firefox color manages by default only if a color profile is present. Otherwise it simply sends the image to the monitor unchanged. Firefox doesn't correctly deal with all types of monitor profiles (I forget the technical reason for this but it had to do something with mozilla switching their color management library a while ago), so make sure you calibrate to a icc v2 matrix profile. I wouldn't trust either Lightroom or Photoshop to show you right color either by the way until you calibrate the monitor.
> Got it Steve, which is why I said: "if you don't need to support iOS".
You have a very non-standard audience if you don't need iOS. I see as much iOS traffic on my websites as PC browsers which is quite common apparently. Mobile platforms really exploded recently. Flash is dead for all intents and purposes. Which is overwhelming good (it is THE main security risk on modern browsers next to java) except for this one advantage of being able to force color management.
-
12. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
areohbee May 18, 2014 9:34 PM (in response to Jao vdL)Jao vdL wrote:
Flash is dead for all intents and purposes.
Correction: Flash is dead for some but not even close to all intents and purposes.
Almost all desktop and laptop systems have flash installed (and enabled.., and is therefore in use when any website delivers flash content), and most risk comes from not using the latest version and browsing to malicious websites...
Most people who own an iPad (or smart-phone..) also own a laptop or desktop computer, so OK, right: if viewing your web pics requires flash, then people may not be able to view them while they're out n' about with condensed device only, but as soon as they get home, they can - this may not be a deal breaker in many circumstances. Also, there is no rule that you can't support two different viewers: html-only for devices that don't support flash (and if you're on the ball - a warning that color may not be correct..), and flash for those that do.
hulu.com requires flash for their streaming video, etc. etc, etc.
So no: not dead at all - still thriving in many environments, albeit not iOS...
Rob
-
13. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ronze98 May 19, 2014 6:46 AM (in response to ssprengel)Just to clarify:
Export images to jpeg format from LR with color space = sRGB: image looks oversaturated in firefox but not on internet explorer
Bring the exported jpeg into PS, save for web with default parameters (color space=sRGB, embedded color profile=no): image looks fine on both firefox and internet explorer
I have no control over how users see the images (on which web browser, calibrated monitor etc..). I don't need the color to be 100% but it can not look too obviously wrong by an untrained pair of eyes.
From what I have gathered so far, setting the color space to sRGB in LR before export is the only thing that can be done. Any plugins that can trigger photoshop and do a batch 'save for web' after LR export?
-
14. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
twenty_one May 19, 2014 7:07 AM (in response to ronze98)I'll go with Jao and call this a bad display profile. That fits all the symptoms. Internet Explorer throws out the profile and uses sRGB instead, so it's unaffected.
(With a wide gamut monitor it would be the other way: FF right, IE wrong).
Try to set sRGB as default monitor profile in Control Panel > Color Management > Devices. If that clears it, it's confirmed. You should still get a calibrator eventually, but sRGB should do for now.
-
15. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ssprengel May 19, 2014 7:03 AM (in response to ronze98)You do not want to save your images without a color profile. They may, as a result of two mistakes, look ok to you in your IE but they won’t look right for other people, necessarily.
-
16. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
twenty_one May 19, 2014 7:08 AM (in response to ssprengel)Absolutely. That too.
-
17. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
ssprengel May 19, 2014 5:34 PM (in response to areohbee)An example of awesome non-Flash is today's Google Doodle at http://www.google.com
Or the same as this:
https://www.google.com/logos/2014/rubiks/rubiks.html -
18. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
areohbee May 19, 2014 8:11 PM (in response to ssprengel)I wouldn't call that "awesome" .
But for the purpose of this thread (i.e. photography) it's not that you can't do some basic animations with html 5, it's that the color is still dictated by the browsers, which (@2014) don't display it properly in many (if not most) cases.
To be clear: HTML 5 does nothing to help with the color problem that has haunted web photo display since the beginning of time. The problem is solved via Flash, so if you want to control what people see when they look at your photos, you have to use a properly implemented Flash app - I acknowledge such is not an option on iOS etc...
Rob
-
19. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
Jao vdL May 19, 2014 9:21 PM (in response to areohbee)General advice for Lightroom users: export to sRGB if your image goes to the web (both HTML and flash) or gets emailed to others. Do NOT strip the profile (like Photoshop's Save for Web anachronistically does by default). If you get strange color that is very different from Lightroom in any web browser, check your monitor calibration profile. In 99% of cases that's the culprit. In general if you want your output color to whatever destination to be as good as you can get it, calibrate and profile your own monitor. The last is by far the most important step.
> the color is still dictated by the browsers, which (@2014) don't display it properly in many (if not most) cases.
Color management in browsers is a major pet peeve of mine as people on this forum know well and until a few years ago, I would have completely agreed albeit I would still have recommended against using flash for anything. The color management situation has radically improved. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all color manage as long as a icc profile is present in the image. Even IE (from 9 on) understands and converts tagged images (Color Management) . If I understand correctly some browsers on Windows (notably IE apparently) do a strange version of color management where they will convert tagged images to sRGB before displaying. So they don't use the monitor profile, but for the vast majority of windows using people this is not an issue as extremely few of them calibrate their monitor. IE is a minority platform nowadays anyway as web statistics all show. So color management is actually present on most of the desktop browsers. That said, this is all moot if you simply use sRGB (and tag!). Almost nobody calibrates their monitor, so using sRGB for everything destined for the web gets you as close as you can get on all browsers and remains the only sensible advice. It will display as good as it gets on tablets (which are never color managed but usually have close to sRGB screens) and on desktops. It is even better if you tag those images with an sRGB profile because the number of people using Macs (where every browser correctly color manages and with very few exceptions a fairly good monitor profile is present by default), is far higher than the number of windows people that do calibrate their monitor, have wide gamut displays and therefore could theoretically benefit from flash color management. Those people (windows+wide gamut monitor+savvy enough to calibrate) are better off running only Firefox in full color management mode anyway as in that mode it will even manage untagged images and HTML color.
Concerning flash, I consider it heaven that Safari by default doesn't run flash applets even if you have flash installed (no longer default on Macs but a separate download and install) without an extra click enabling the content. Plugins for Safari and Chrome like click-to-flash, etc. are also fantastic. These things have suddenly made the web useful again as annoying ads and blary stuff no longer appear everywhere. Furthermore, flash is a constant source of zero-day exploits sending Adobe scrambling and leaving us vulnerable for long periods all the time. Worse, even Adobe's flash updater looks very much like a trojan installer resulting in many people that have a modicum of training (don't click on stuff saying it needs to install to make stuff better as the result of going to a webpage!) not running fully patched flash. So with all this, I'd very strongly recommend against using flash for anything on the modern web. You're missing a major audience in mobile browsers for no realistic benefit.
-
20. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
areohbee May 19, 2014 10:30 PM (in response to Jao vdL)In general: my experience of modern web browsers (color-management-wise) is not anywhere near as positive as yours. Improving: yes (albeit painfully slowly) - but still problematic (color is off) for way too many users..
Note: if your flash app is properly implemented (color-management is *disabled* by default - ugh), then there is no reason not to export with AdobeRGB (assuming only interface is via said flash app), if you want to - that's what I do, and my images look exactly the same (other than expected monitor variations of course, on all systems, all browsers).
Reminder: If you want assurance of correct color for systems with flash, yet still make photos available for the iOS crowd, then you can export as sRGB, and support both html interface and Flash, which is chosen can be user choice or auto-detect..
I'm not sure if flash is more vulnerable than your browser itself (e.g. to "zero day" exploits), but I agree one should not just download stuff from anywhere and run it..
Old browsers are very vulnerable to attacks from malicious websites, as is old flash software, so keeping both updated is a good idea, and of course be careful where you browse and how you get there etc. (also consider web security software such as Webroot..).
The easiest way to assure flash is updated, is enabled by default, so once you install it, it stays up to date automatically, unless you prohibit it:
If you do prefer updating manually, you can do so safely by typing the following link directly into your browser (or selecting via bookmark):
get.adobe.com/flashplayer
(if you forget the address, search for "adobe flash download")
~R.
-
21. Re: Oversaturated images on browser
areohbee May 19, 2014 10:53 PM (in response to ronze98)ronze98 wrote:
do a batch 'save for web' after LR export?
Nuthin' new here, but in case not clear yet, you do NOT want to do that. As ssprengel said, you got "lucky" that things looked right without an ICC profile assigned. I agree with everybody who says you should always tag your web-bound images (include ICC profile), *and* export as sRGB (unless using a color-validated flash app) - software will either ignore the tag or have a fightin' chance at displaying properly. If you have to omit the tag in order for it to look right in some cases, it will most definitely look wrong in some other cases.
Final note: there are metadata standards which dictate how to display colors on the host machine in the absence of an icc profile (when data is sRGB or AdobeRGB anyway), but you can't trust all software to properly respect that metadata, so it should only be relied upon if you know the target-machine/display-software.
Rob




