Looks great in Photoshop, dull everywhere else!

[Mike]

"SRB" <srb@srb.com> wrote in message
news:0l1qgv06pnj2r50cnn0uph14e3jtnt1oon@4ax.com...

>
> Ack, what a frustrating problem.
>
> First let me state that I've done my homework on Google about
> color-spaces and think I understand them fairly well... though
> obviously not well enough.
>
> I have an image taken with a Nikon Coolpix 2100 (that uses a fake sRGB
> profile) which I load into Photoshop 7.0.1. It looks amazing - the
> reds particularly are nice and deep. I get these great colors both
> when my "working space" is set to sRGB or Adobe 1998, and they remain
> whether I convert the image on load to my working space or use the
> embedded space (but using no space looks over-exposed).
>
> HOWEVER, every other image display program I've tried does not show as
> rich an image as PS!! The reds are quite dull!! I've tried to coax
> this nice image out of PS but everything I save and view elsewhere
> looks dull too! The only thing I can do to preserve the richness is to
> take a freakin' screen capture of Photoshop and then crop and save
> that. Obviously that's unacceptable and there's something that I'm
> missing.
>
> If you have any theories on why this may be I'd love to know... thanks
> in advance.
>
> -SRB

Could be double correction.
I found that when I loaded photocopy on to the computer first time the print
wisywig with the screen when I calibrated in the normal way everything went
haywire, colour wise.

I started again by removing all profiles then re-calabrating. making sure
the white and black points are spot on even so its pig to get right youd
think the top program would make fool proof Its near perfect but not quite.
Mike

[John Houghton]

"SRB" <srb@srb.com> wrote in message
news:0l1qgv06pnj2r50cnn0uph14e3jtnt1oon@4ax.com...

> I've tried to coax
> this nice image out of PS but everything I save and view elsewhere
> looks dull too! The only thing I can do to preserve the richness is to
> take a freakin' screen capture of Photoshop and then crop and save
> that.

Given what you say this may not make any difference, but you should be using
Image->Mode->Convert to Profile to convert the image to sRGB before using
Save for Web or saving for non colour managed applications. Try that if you
are not already doing it.

John

[Bart van der Wolf]

"SRB" <srb@srb.com> wrote in message
news:0l1qgv06pnj2r50cnn0uph14e3jtnt1oon@4ax.com...
SNIP

> If you have any theories on why this may be I'd love to know... thanks
> in advance.

Color profile mismatch.

If you open the image in Photoshop, and the file has an embedded profile
description, you will be offered the choice to either retain that color
space, convert to your working space or ignore all together. In the latter
case Photoshop has no idea how to display, so it probably will look awful.

You are now looking at a file encoded with a certain profile, that probably
is different from your non-color managed output device (e.g. CRT or
printer). If you look at that file with a non-color management aware
application, it can look like you describe, dull, but it could also look
extremely saturated.

If you want the file to look good in most non-color managed applications
(e.g. most web browsers) you need to convert the file in Photoshop to the
destination space and save the file after that conversion. This only works
if the file had a profile assigned in the first place, because converting
needs to know from what to convert, into a destination space.

Bart

[SRB]

First of all, thank you to everyone who responded.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:55:47 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@nospam.nl> wrote:

>
>"SRB" <srb@srb.com> wrote in message
>news:0l1qgv06pnj2r50cnn0uph14e3jtnt1oon@4ax.com.. .
>SNIP

>> If you have any theories on why this may be I'd love to know... thanks
>> in advance.

>
>Color profile mismatch.
>
>If you open the image in Photoshop, and the file has an embedded profile
>description, you will be offered the choice to either retain that color
>space, convert to your working space or ignore all together. In the latter
>case Photoshop has no idea how to display, so it probably will look awful.
>

Yes indeed, I do get this choice. And yes the latter looks awful. The
first two choices look about the same, that is, quite good and
non-dull.

>You are now looking at a file encoded with a certain profile, that probably
>is different from your non-color managed output device (e.g. CRT or
>printer). If you look at that file with a non-color management aware
>application, it can look like you describe, dull, but it could also look
>extremely saturated.
>

Hmmm. I have used Monaco EZ-Colour to set up an ICC profile for my
monitor.

>If you want the file to look good in most non-color managed applications
>(e.g. most web browsers) you need to convert the file in Photoshop to the
>destination space and save the file after that conversion. This only works
>if the file had a profile assigned in the first place, because converting
>needs to know from what to convert, into a destination space.

Well from what I've read on the Nikon site even though the EXIF
information in the image says sRGB it's not really true sRGB, but
something approximate to that to begin with.

So I'm confused. I thought if I have my dandy-looking image in
Photoshop and I take care to mode->convert the profile to sRGB, then
it should look good in most imaging apps. Perhaps sRGB is just not
capable of these nice colors? But it must be since I can take a
screen-shot of it when in Photoshop, save it, and it looks good in
other programs. Any ideas?

-SRB