Different colour - photoshop and windows viewer

[nikkib]

In windows viewer and the internet my photos are much more saturated than Photoshop. It is very frustrating as most my photos are posted on the internet and to make them look ok on the web I have to make them look ridiculously flat and desaturated in photoshop, which is not a good way to work.

In photoshop I use sRGB as I have heard that it is better to use for internet photos therefore I don't understand why there is an issue. I notice when I change adobe gamma that it does affect the photo in windows viewer, which I didn't think it would because I heard that windows viewer etc is not color managed. I'm sure the monitor I have is not great LG Studioworks 710s and am wondering if that is an issue. Also I am using 6500 white point, gamma 2.2. I have no idea of what phosphors my monitor is so I'm using p22-ebu.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

[Damo77]

Hi NikkiB, welcome to the forum.

Yes, this sounds very frustrating. You're certainly doing the right thing using sRGB. Your problem is not so common - usually people find that their beautiful bright colours are dying on the web, but once they change to an sRGB workflow, they're ok.

In your case, I think it has a great deal to do with your monitor. Two things come to mind:

1) Get a monitor calibrator. I can't encourage this enough. Adobe Gamma is clumsy at best. A basic calibrator (a Huey) can be purchased for about US$70, I understand. It won't guarantee your problem will be fixed, but it'll help.

2) Have you had a look at your web photos on somebody else's computer? I'd be interested to see if they look exactly like yours, or duller. If you know someone with a calibrated monitor, that would be even better.

[Zetto]

hey nikkib,
what color profile do you use in Windows itself? Maybe the one that came with your monitor (driver)? change it to sRGB and it should work.

Control Panel > Display > Settings > Advanced > Color Management

the trick is that both the Windows and the Photoshop profile need to be the same.

greets,
Zetto

[roger_ele]

If you use Save For Web, the little menu triangle has four choices for color output, I use the last one "Use Document Color Profile" - I had problems until I discovered this ... years ago so I don't remember the details ...

[crazyfly1]

Nikkib,
The srgb color space was created to mimic the colors that most monitors would show-years and years ago. Best reccomendation I could make would be to switch your Adobe color space to Adobe RGB (1998). Did you catch that? 1998? Yup sRGB is older than that.
This may fix all your color problems. If you then want to see what your image should look like on a monitor just go under "view", check "proof colors" and then under "proof setup" look at monitor, mac, windows RGB.
BTW if you work on RAW images much you may want to check into using the Prophoto RGB color space.

[Damo77]

Sorry, crazyfly, you're all wrong here. I've never heard of anybody recommending Adobe RGB as a "solution" to colour problems before.

You're right, sRGB is an oldish standard now, but it's still the best standard we've got. Adobe RGB was NEVER meant to be a replacement for sRGB. And Nikki's monitor almost certainly has a much poorer gamut than the good old CRTs on which sRGB was based.

I've heard plenty of other people recommend ProPhoto RGB for working with Raws, but I think it's utter bunkum. (Personal preference, of course). I think it's very unwise to advise a junior member, who is apparently still learning the concepts of colour management, to use anything other than sRGB.

Unfortunately, seeing as we haven't seen Nikki since March, I'd say we might all be whistling into the wind anyway.

[crazyfly1]

Damien, you may be right about telling a new person to use sRGB, but I don't think so, and as you are probably right about Nikki's absence I'll say why.
I believe in teaching the correct way from the beginning and I think RGB is the right way. RGB was created to represent the colors the eye can see and not what a 20 year old mac monitor can represent.
This is not unlike the common misconception that images only need to be 75 PPI for web use.
RGB will get much closer to today’s monitors as well as most home printers. I'm not sure why we would intentionally work in a color space that will clip or "fake" colors if it's not necessary.
RGB will print better and look better on most monitors and if you are going to switch color spaces for any output it makes much more sence to downsample, not up.
The reason I thought it might solve this particular problem is because it was an instance of going from less color to more color. That could very well be a result of working in sRGB and saving in RGB by default.
This is of course, all just my opinions and not everyone will agree, however I'd be willing to bet (and give you odds) that if we made a poll we'd see more than 75% of those responding working in RGB or Prophoto.

[Damo77]

Wow.

You know, I'm a fairly untidy person, so my office gets pretty messy, and every now and again I have to have a good cleanup. Sometimes I leave it a little too long, and the mess is so bad I find myself just looking at it and thinking "Oh my God, where am I going to even begin?"

Well, I thought exactly the same thing while reading your post.

I guess I'll take it piece by piece and see if I can clear a few things up.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

I believe in teaching the correct way from the beginning and I think RGB is the right way.

Ok, you proved yourself ignorant right from the start. By "RGB" do you mean Adobe RGB? If so, you need to be very clear on this point.

There is, from a colour management point of view, no such thing as RGB. Telling people you use RGB is like telling people you drive a car. All you're doing is telling them that you are not a cyclist. You are giving them absolutely no information about what kind of car you drive, how big the engine is, how many passengers you can carry, etc.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

RGB was created to represent the colors the eye can see and not what a 20 year old mac monitor can represent.

Again, are you talking about Adobe RGB? If you are, you're still wrong. LAB (or more accurately, CIE L*a*b*) was created to represent all the colours the eye can see. Adobe RGB is a small section of that, created, I believe, to roughly represent the gamut of a printing press.

I reiterate my earlier point - Nikki's monitor almost certainly has a much poorer gamut than the good old CRTs on which sRGB was based.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

This is not unlike the common misconception that images only need to be 75 PPI for web use.

I agree. Web images don't need any specific resolution. They can be 12ppi or 872ppi - it makes no difference.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

Adobe RGB will get much closer to today’s monitors as well as most home printers. I'm not sure why we would intentionally work in a color space that will clip or "fake" colors if it's not necessary.

(I've put the word Adobe in orange, because I assume that's what you mean)

Alas, not true. The very top-of-the-line Eizo monitors have a gamut that's nearing or equal to Adobe RGB, but the average monitor struggles to achieve sRGB, in my understanding. I must admit I haven't done any tests on consumer-grade monitors myself, so I'm relying on what I've read.

As for printers, I don't have any knowledge in this regard, but I am extremely doubtful that they exceed the sRGB gamut. I hope somebody with the necessary knowledge will be able to chime in here.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

Adobe RGB will print better and look better on most monitors

Adobe RGB images will look ok in Photoshop, but lousy anywhere else. (Which was the point of the original post, if you recall). Non-colour-managed programs either (a) assume an image is sRGB; or (b) just display the colour values however the monitor can. You were right when you advised Nikki that she could preview the latter behaviour using Photoshop's soft-proofing function, but of course, the drawback to that is that it only shows how it will look on Nikki's own monitor - not anybody else's.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

and if you are going to switch color spaces for any output it makes much more sence to downsample, not up.

Agree. Care has to be taken with rendering intents and out-of-gamut colours, of course.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

The reason I thought it might solve this particular problem is because it was an instance of going from less color to more color. That could very well be a result of working in sRGB and saving in RGB by default.

I don't think so, but I wish we could have heard a bit more from Nikki about her particular circumstances.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

This is of course, all just my opinions and not everyone will agree, however I'd be willing to bet (and give you odds) that if we made a poll we'd see more than 75% of those responding working in Adobe RGB or Prophoto.

If the poll were among professionals, then yes, I'd say you're right. There are certainly advantages to using the larger gamut spaces. (As I said previously, I personally see no advantage to ProPhoto, but that's immaterial).

However, that doesn't change the fact that if an image is destined for the web, as Nikki's are, they definitely need to be changed to sRGB before uploading.

[crazyfly1]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml

First, yes I’m talking about Adobe RGB 1998 when I say RGB. I had thought I could safely drop the Adobe and 1998 as it should be obvious what I’m referring to. We are after all talking about color spaces within RGB. By the way, when you say gamut you do mean color gamut right?
I’m not at all sure why you insist that Nikki’s 4 or 5 year old CRT monitor must not represent colors as well as an ancient CRT.
I’m not going to get into a conversation about pixel density with you; suffice it to say that it is more common, lately for a monitor to have the capacity to display 130 ppi x and y than it is for them to display 75ppi.
You said “Adobe RGB will look ok in Photoshop, but lousy anywhere else”
WOW and you called me ignorant.
Then you said “you were right when you advised Nikki that she could preview the latter behavior using Photoshop's soft-proofing function, but of course, the drawback to that is that it only shows how it will look on Nikki's own monitor - not anybody else's.”
No, it’s not a drawback; it’s the whole freaking point. Nikki looks at an image on her screen in Photoshop and it looks different than it does on HER screen on the web.
So you agree that taking an image from Adobe RGB to sRGB is destructive. You also agree that most professionals here probably use Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB. Why again is it that you would recommend sRGB to anyone? Why would someone want to take a photo from a decent digital camera and scrap a large portion of the colors when they take the image into Photoshop? Why would you suggest that someone take a scan from a decent scanner and then throw away nearly half of the colors before they begin work trying to restore it?
No, an image does not neccacarilly need to be changed to sRGB before being uploaded to the web.
Again, these are my opinions. Everyone is entitled to thier opinions and it’s even OK if they’re wrong.
Enjoy your teeny tiny little color space.

[TommyO]

And we all thought this thread was so old it would close soon... this has been exciting !

I won't post an opinion. Rather, just in case you guys are interested, there is an excellent book I read this spring that should be on everyone's shelf. It is not for novices, and does take a couple of months to get through it. But, well worth every penny (5 cent to you Damo) !

Real World Color Management (Second Edition) Industrial-Strength Production Techniques by Bruce Fraser, Chris Murphy and Fred Bunting. Peachpit Press.
Here's a glimpse:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0201...e=UTF8&p=S003#

To quote Peachpit Press, "Bruce Fraser, Peachpit's dear friend and colleague, passed away December 16, 2006. The principal author of the best-selling Real World series of books about Adobe Photoshop and the definitive works Real World Color Management, Real World Camera Raw, and his recently published Real World Image Sharpening, Bruce enlightened end users and experts worldwide on the intricacies of color publishing and imaging though his many lectures, product review and magazine columns. He was the expert’s expert and collaborated with virtually every manufacturer and developer of color imaging products from the earliest days (including Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., Epson America, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Microsoft Corporation, and X-Rite Inc.).

For more than 20 years Bruce wielded enormous influence in the evolution of digital color management, and became an industry legend by teaching color and effective means for its use in digital workflow. Since the early years, he played an important consulting role in the development of Adobe Photoshop, including during that programs’ earliest incarnation when it was known as BarneyScan XP. He contributed to the introduction of the very first spectrophotometer targeting the desktop world – the COLORTRON – a product that pointed the way to current instruments deemed essential to successful color reproduction from the desktop.

On December 15, the day before his passing, Bruce received the first National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2005, Bruce was also recognized at Photoshop World when he was inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame."

[Damo77]

TommyO, I already own it, and have read it cover-to-cover twice. I also own "Color Management for Photographers by Andrew Rodney (aka The Digital Dog), which is an equally informative tome.

Don't be shy - let's hear your views.

[Damo77]

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

Again, these are my opinions. Everyone is entitled to thier opinions and it’s even OK if they’re wrong.

If this were simply a discussion about your own workflow, I wouldn't be wasting any time here. What you're doing obviously works for you, and that's terrific. However, since you're offering up some of this garbage as advice to a new (and presumably still learning about the intricacies of digital colour) member, I feel obliged to set the record straight.

I feel as uncomfortable watching you dish out your "advice" to new members as I would about watching a child with loaded gun - somebody's going to get hurt. About half of what you've said is advanced colour-management practice, and the other half is utter fallacy. The former is unsuitable for new members, and the latter is, of course, unsuitable for anyone.

So, for anybody who's come to this forum, as Nikki did, seeking advice about best colour practice for images for the web, please begin with these few pieces of advice.

1. If at all possible, calibrate your monitor with a hardware calibration device. These range from cheap to expensive. At the cheap end is the Pantone Huey (about US$70, I believe) which is a good starting point for an amateur. Spyder and XRite are the two most popular brands.

I can't emphasize the importance of calibration enough. You need to know your monitor is adhering to established standards as well as it can.

2. If you're really new to digital imaging, I and many others recommend sticking to sRGB throughout your workflow.

If you're retouching photos from a low-end camera, it will give you sRGB images anyway. Jpegs from DSLRs could also be Adobe RGB, and if you're processing Raw files, or scanning, you have the choice of other spaces, including ProPhoto RGB as mentioned.

Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB have larger colour gamuts (range of colour) than sRGB. Once you're comfortable with your tools and workflow, by all means use these larger spaces. There are distinct advantages, some of which are discussed in the link provided by CrazyFly.

But be aware that non-sRGB files require colour-managed software to view the colours accurately. Obviously Adobe products, and other imaging programs, are fully capable of this. An increasing number of basic image viewers, and now web browsers, are also capable of rendering large-gamut images correctly. Safari, Firefox 3 and, I believe, IE7 all have colour-management capability, although the last two need the user to manually activate this functionality.

BUT ... and this is the big BUT ... not everyone is using those browsers yet. And only a tiny percentage have turned on the CM function, and calibrated with a hardware device. Most people will see large-gamut images either (a) as if they were sRGB, resulting in dull colours; or (b) however their cheap monitors can display them, usually badly.

So this brings me to point 3 ...

3. Convert ALL images to sRGB for web use. If in Photoshop, make sure you choose "Convert to profile" not "Assign profile" for this task. (You should also be aware of rendering intents, but if I tried to explain this here I'll be up all night.)

Unfortunately this conversion will not guarantee that everyone sees your images just as you see them. This is impossible. If you've ever been in a television store and seen all the TVs showing the same show in various colours, you'll understand the problem. Quite simply, you cannot control how somebody is going to see your photos. Not only does it depend on their monitor, but also on their room lighting, and how many beers they've had.

However, sRGB is without question the best standard that exists. The "s" stands for "standard", and it's a valiant attempt by the colour industry to document a loose standard that most people's monitors (and printers) conform to. It's a lousy system, but it's the best we've got.

(I should also mention - if you've retouched your image in a large-gamut colour space, don't convert that to sRGB and save over it. You may well have the chance to print your masterpiece to a large-gamut printer, and it would be a shame not to take advantage of that. Make a "for web" copy of your file and convert that one.)

I would also like to add at this point that a lot of photographs simply don't have colours that exist outside of sRGB. The average photo of a bride and groom, for example, won't venture outside sRGB unless the bride is carrying a very bright bouquet. However, I don't want to discourage people from using a large-gamut space if available. It's a good option. Just don't forget to convert to sRGB before posting to the web. In Photoshop CS3, this conversion is done automatically, I believe, in the Save for web function.

Oh, and if you're using ProPhoto RGB, make sure you work with a high-bit file. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're probably not ready.

Wow! I need a lie down. That's about all the wisdom I have for now. I hope it helps somebody. Now I'm going to get back to insulting CrazyFly. Because, heck, I love a good argument.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml
...
Enjoy your teeny tiny little color space.

I've read that link before, but it was worth reading again, thank you. I agree with it. The most relevant part to this discussion is the very last paragraph.

I have never once said I work in sRGB. All I've said was that it's a wise choice for new members, and the only choice for web images.

As it happens, I do work in sRGB a lot of the time. That's often because I'm working with other people's images, and they supply sRGB to me. Also, when I'm working with images that I know will only ever have an sRGB-ish output, such as web or newsprint, there is no purpose to working in anything larger.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

First, yes I’m talking about Adobe RGB 1998 when I say RGB. I had thought I could safely drop the Adobe and 1998 as it should be obvious what I’m referring to. We are after all talking about color spaces within RGB. By the way, when you say gamut you do mean color gamut right?

No, you cannot "safely drop the Adobe" at all. Saying simply "RGB" is dangerously ambiguous.

Of course I mean colour gamut. Nothing ambiguous there.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

I’m not at all sure why you insist that Nikki’s 4 or 5 year old CRT monitor must not represent colors as well as an ancient CRT.

I don't know much about Nikki's monitor, but I have no reason to believe it is a high-end unit.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

I’m not going to get into a conversation about pixel density with you; suffice it to say that it is more common, lately for a monitor to have the capacity to display 130 ppi x and y than it is for them to display 75ppi.

I agree that this is way off topic, but please understand that monitors ignore file resolution. Pixel count is the only thing that matters. An 800px wide image will be an 800px wide image, no matter what arbitrary resolution has been assigned to it.

Software is exactly the same. Don't forget that when Photoshop displays a file at 100%, it's displaying 1 image pixel per 1 screen pixel. It doesn't care what the resolution is.

You're right that 72 or 75ppi screens are unheard-of nowadays. I'd say the lowest res available would be somewhere in the 90s.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

You said “Adobe RGB will look ok in Photoshop, but lousy anywhere else”
WOW and you called me ignorant.

I stand by that. Of course I should have said "will look ok in colour-managed applications, but lousy anywhere else", to be more accurate.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

Then you said “you were right when you advised Nikki that she could preview the latter behavior using Photoshop's soft-proofing function, but of course, the drawback to that is that it only shows how it will look on Nikki's own monitor - not anybody else's.”
No, it’s not a drawback; it’s the whole freaking point. Nikki looks at an image on her screen in Photoshop and it looks different than it does on HER screen on the web.

If Nikki was the only person who was going to look at her images, then why would she post them on the web in the first place? You need a colour-management strategy that offers the best chance for your image to be viewed reasonably well by everybody in the world. sRGB is that strategy.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

So you agree that taking an image from Adobe RGB to sRGB is destructive. You also agree that most professionals here probably use Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB. Why again is it that you would recommend sRGB to anyone? Why would someone want to take a photo from a decent digital camera and scrap a large portion of the colors when they take the image into Photoshop? Why would you suggest that someone take a scan from a decent scanner and then throw away nearly half of the colors before they begin work trying to restore it?

Yes, it can be destructive, but when it's necessary, steps must be taken to minimise the damage. The two main tools are (a) selection of most suitable rendering intent, and (b) gamut warnings to identify potential problems.

As to why I recommend it, I think I've made that clear above.

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

No, an image does not neccacarilly need to be changed to sRGB before being uploaded to the web.

I notice that you haven't provide a website in your profile. (I guess anonymity is handy when you're peddling nonsense.) It's a pity - I would like to see some of your large-gamut masterpieces on a website.

[crazyfly1]

Damien,
I owe you an apology. For whatever reason, you are obviously stuck with the color space that you have. I don’t know why but it’s readily apparent that you just have a small color space. I want you to know that it’s OK. You don’t need to start saying now that “I have never once said I work in sRGB.” You have a little color space and you are coming out as an advocate for people with small color spaces, and I salute you for that. I think it’s wonderful that you are not shy about your color space and that you want to help others who are, shall we say color space challenged.
Shortly, Oh My Gosh I’m sorry- later on, I will list 5 training videos, elementary training videos. I would recommend that you not watch them. I am not trying to rub salt in your wounds and some of the people on those videos are not quite as understanding as I am about your small color space. In fact they can be kind of mean about it. So again, ignore the 5 different videos, I’ve only posted them for others, and really, probably no one else will watch them either. Even if they do watch them they will probably not use the bigger color space cuz they are new and like you say when you’re just starting out and having your first experiences with Photoshop, you should just use the itty bitty color space, really, I think it’s cute.

My opinion follows:

Damien has said that he would recommend sRGB to newer photshop users
He agrees that Adobe RGB and Prophoto RGB are larger and he says that at some point Once you're comfortable with your tools and workflow, by all means use these larger spaces.
So what I didn’t understand was why he would admit that sRGB sucks. Claim that he doesn’t generally work in it himself and yet, tell others that they should work with this garbage colorspace. “Go ahead and rape half of the color out of all of your images for the next year and then maybe you’ll be ready to play in our sandbox." He seemed to be saying, but… now he has said that they should go ahead and save a copy of there original images so that they can have an image left to work on that they didn’t destroy.

Seems much less complicated to me to teach a new person the right way to work from the start.


He says “Adobe RGB was NEVER meant to be a replacement for sRGB.”
This is a silly statement. sRGB is the standard for web because HP and Microsoft rammed it through the ICC. Since then The Masters of the Universe in imaging, Adobe have made Adobe RGB the standard for image editing.


Here are 5 basic training videos from different sources for those of you who just opened your box of Adobe products yesterday, please don’t take my or Damiens word for this, watch the videos and decide for yourself.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0SzAdrNeLLM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YEhDT9KToaw

Deke in a series called the Essentials

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Sg91KYKw7c

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uw0hhLU--Qk

VTC Training

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wpYbmv8KHR4

And if you want to tune into Photoshop User TV episode 109 (I think) You can see NAPP president Scott Kelby refer to sRGB as both Stupid RGB and Satin RGB.


In windows viewer and the internet my photos are much more saturated than Photoshop.

This was the original problem that started this thread.
I will restate what I said before;
The reason I thought it might solve this particular problem is because it was an instance of going from less color to more color. That could very well be a result of working in sRGB and saving in RGB by default.
Damien disagreed with this but did not give a reason.
I recommend you try it yourself. Open an Adobe RGB image and convert it in Photoshop to sRGB. Now make some adjustments, fix the levels, maybe run auto color, unsharp mask. OK, now save the image with the save for web function and when you do make sure you save it in Adobe RGB. Now open that image in windows picture and fax viewer or the like and see what you’ve got.

Anyway, in closing let me just say that to my mind it makes more sence to stay in Adobe RGB as long as possible and if you are taking an image from sRGB to Adobe RGB you are not going to harm the image at all. The same cannot be said of taking an image the other way so why do it? Ever? You can take an image to sRGB from Adobe RGB for web use, but it is NOT necessary. You will need to adjust your colors a bit. This is not complicated and no different than making adjustments for CMYK conversion. But please do not worry, your friends computers will not blow up or shut down because they viewed one of your images in Adobe RGB over the internet. They may see a little bit less saturated green, but no sparks, no fire, no danger of electric shock.

So forget all of this;
"sRGB is an oldish standard now, but it's still the best standard we've got."
"Adobe RGB images will look ok in Photoshop, but lousy anywhere else."
"If you're really new to digital imaging, I and many others recommend sticking to sRGB throughout your workflow."
"sRGB.,.It's a lousy system, but it's the best we've got."
"I have never once said I work in sRGB. All I've said was that it's a wise choice for new members"
"As it happens, I do work in sRGB a lot of the time."

And most importantly forget this;

"Once you're comfortable with your tools and workflow, by all means use these larger spaces."

Watch the videos and make your own choice.

[Damo77]

There's a great deal of truth to this quote, I'm afraid.

I'm out. I've given my advice as best I can.

If anybody else wants to try to clean up this mess, you're welcome to it.

[crazyfly1]

Identical images. Absolutely no manipulation at all in Photoshop or other program. In order. One image is saved with an Adobe RGB 98 color profile. One is saved with the sRGB color profile. One has been stripped of it’s ICC color profile and is not color managed at all (the horror of it, Oh My) .
I think it is pretty easy to see that with the tiniest bit of adjustment in saturation you could compensate for the slight color shift.
At any rate I hope no one's monitor exploded.

[Damo77]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

Oh, this is fantastic! I know I said I was out, but this is gold! Thanks for going to the trouble to prove my point!

If this were soccer, you have just scored an own goal to lose the match in extra time, my friend. Right now there's hooligans rioting in your home town

Ok, let's take a look.

You've started with an Adobe RGB image (nothing wrong with that), and posted it three times: (1) As is, with the Adobe RGB profile embedded; (2) Converted to sRGB, with the profile embedded; (3) Still Adobe RGB, but with the profile removed.

Let's discuss some scenarios of web viewing:

Scenario 1: Average person, on an average monitor, with a non-CM browser (the most common scenario)

A non-CM browser doesn't recognise profiles, so therefore doesn't know that image (1) is Adobe RGB. It displays image (1) the same as it does image (3) - that is, partially desaturated - because the RGB values are the same in both files.
The RGB values in image (2) are different, because the file has been converted to sRGB. Image (2) displays more saturated, and therefore much closer to the colours seen in Photoshop.

Score: sRGB 1, Adobe RGB 0, untagged Adobe RGB 0

Scenario 2: Average person, average monitor, using a CM-enabled browser (unlikely, but possible)

The browser recognises the Adobe RGB tag in image (1), and displays it exactly the same as the sRGB image (2). The browser assumes the untagged image is sRGB, therefore displays the muted colours as above.

Score: sRGB 1, Adobe RGB 1, untagged Adobe RGB 0

Scenario 3: CM-aware person (eg a photographer), with a correctly calibrated monitor, using a CM-enabled browser

Results exactly as Scenario 2, but with even more accurate colour rendition compared to your original file in Photoshop.

Score: sRGB 1, Adobe RGB 1, untagged Adobe RGB 0

Final score: sRGB 3, Adobe RGB 2, untagged Adobe RGB 0.

BUT this is not an accurate score, is it? Let's generously assume that one tenth of all web users have enabled colour management in their browsers (or are using Safari, which has it enabled by default). That means that the points for Scenario 1 should be: sRGB 9, Adobe RGB 0, and poor old untagged Adobe RGB still 0.

Oooh ... not looking good for the Adobe RGB team!

sRGB is clearly the best option for web images. It doesn't matter what space you edit in, as I've repeatedly said, but there is no doubt that it must be converted to sRGB for display on the web.

Let's ponder one last thought. In Photoshop CS3, Adobe introduced new functionality to its Save for web command - namely, the ability to convert to a web-suitable profile while performing the save. What profile is it? Ah, it's sRGB. There is no option for anything else, not even their very own Adobe RGB. Why? Because Adobe understand the realities of colour.

[Zetto]

wow this is/was entertaining.

I'm fairly new to color management myself, but I have to agree with Damien. sRGB is, now, without doubt the only option when it comes to web-use. Of course we have color-managed browsers coming up recently (I myself use a color-managed Firefox 3.0), but as Damien said, the majority simply doesn't care about color-management.

Additionaly I have to correct myself. Of course, your (calibrated) monitor-profile is the preferred one.

[crazyfly1]

First let me say that I am pleased that judging by first TommyO’s and now Zetto’s comments, Damien and my discussion is being perceived in the way that I believe we both intend it, as a good natured exchange.

That said I’d like to try and recap and maybe at the same time refocus on what to me, have been the major issues.
The gist of the original post was;

“In windows viewer and the internet my photos are much more saturated than Photoshop.”
“In photoshop I use sRGB as I have heard that it is better to use for internet photos therefore I don't understand why there is an issue.”

To this my suggestion was that it could be a product of saving a sRGB file with an Adobe RGB profile. Damien disagreed but did not say why. That’s OK, neither of us will ever know for sure.

The second point became the quibble about Damien’s suggestion that new Photoshop users work exclusively in sRGB.

“If you're really new to digital imaging, I and many others recommend sticking to sRGB throughout your workflow.”
“Once you're comfortable with your tools and workflow, by all means use these larger spaces.”

I completely disagree with this advice, I don’t know that I would compare it to handing a child a loaded gun the comparison Damien used when I suggested working in Adobe RGB, but I do disagree.
Damien makes the point multiple times that working in Adobe RGB somehow involves advanced color theory and hints at that it would be too difficult or complicated for a new Photoshopper.
This in my opinion is absurd. First, it is simply a matter of a silent setting in the background- set it and forget it. Until output. Now if you’re going to web, sure save in sRGB (before you get to rolling on the floor again Damien, I’ll come back to that point). Now someone tell me how that was too tough for even the most novice user?
Upside is that you didn’t destroy the color info in every picture you took this year.

I posted 5 videos all obviously for the Photoshop beginner, one from VTC and another from Lynda, both very reputable training companies both stating that the optimal working environment is Adobe RGB. If that isn’t enough look here
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/inp...libration.html
to read TommyO’s advice to a novice to work in Adobe RGB unless the majority of that persons work was creating graphics for the web.

To me telling someone to work in sRGB would be like telling a new user not to use layers. It simply wouldn’t make sense. That is the heart of the program and while being one of the most complicated parts it should probably be one of the first things a new user gets familiar with.
K, all that said I will say that these are just my opinions and Damien’s opinions respectively and (despite all the evidence from professional trainers that I offered) there really is no definitive right answer to what is the best color space for a novice to work in.
(Watch the videos )

Lastly;
“if an image is destined for the web, as Nikki's are, they definitely need to be changed to sRGB before uploading.”
I took exception to this statement with its bold face type that seems to say that horrible things will happen if you post an image with anything but an sRGB ICC profile on the web. The 3 pictures I posted prove that this is simply not true.
You are all seeing a green xmas tree, right? Noone is seeing a purple tree are you? Noone is seeing a picture of a German Sheppard, right?
Colors (mostly greens appear slightly less saturated in one colorspace than they do in the other. This is easily fixed with a little slide of the saturation bar. Now if you’re a professional and you want your editor to see your photos, guess what, their system is calibrated and color managed, right?
Now if you’re putting them up so that Aunt Sue can see the baby pictures guess what, Aunt Sues monitor is not calibrated so chances are that that little change in saturation will be the least of her problems. Right?
In the end I never said, or even came close to sounding as though I was against posting sRGB images on the web. I am against teaching a new person the wrong way to work.

Wait, I was pondering something else…
Oh and Damien, yes I love the save for web function. If my working color space is Adobe RGB (and of course it always is) then the save for web function DEFAULTS to save in Adobe RGB. If I want to save with sRGB I have to choose it from the drop menue. So as it turns out, your right, Adobe can be pretty smart. Why isn’t there an option to go from sRGB to Adobe RGB? Because (and I think at least we can agree on this) that would be stupid. Once a file has suffered the transformation to sRGB there is just no going back.
Hope that clears things up.

[Damo77]

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

First let me To this my suggestion was that it could be a product of saving a sRGB file with an Adobe RGB profile. Damien disagreed but did not say why.

I didn't understand you, and I still don't. Surely you're not suggesting that Nikki is accidentally converting or assigning Adobe RGB to her sRGB images? I can't possibly imagine how that could happen.

[crazyfly1]

Um, OK you're probably right. Thanx for the explanation.