Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3884
Santa Cruz, California, US
Edit: ups, I just realized you were maybe asking a web design question, lol. Were you? I assume it's a standard question, "why my colors look different online" But I will leave the answer it might help someone else.  Depends on what web browsers you are using with what settings as well as what color profile you have embedded and preserved in your images? I see no difference between your images but that is specific to me. I imagine most people will not have the same settings as me. But here is what you need to do. 1. Save all your images with the embedded sRGB color profile. 2. Use modern browser like Firefox or Chrome. 3. If the color profile is not stripped, you should be able to see correct colors. 4. Some website when you upload the images, tend to compress you image and some also strip your profile. 5. Once the profile has been striped or if you have not embedded it yourself, even the modern browsers won't be able to show the color properly. This is because I believe Chrome, Safari and Firefox by default only read tagged images. But don't color manage non tagged images. 6. Only browser that supports color management even for untagged images is Firefox but it's a hidden feature that you have to manually activate. I have it activated and that is the reason I see no difference between your images. 7. If you want to learn more I have a detailed tutorial on it. Real World Retouching: Practical Guide to Preparing and Sending Images to The Client https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpQL8iK … 4Uv8Oc4sr4 Cheers!
Photographer
Farenell Photography
Posts: 18832
Albany, New York, US
walterfantauzzi wrote:
Hi Guys,
Well I've share this pic on google+, facebook, tumblr, twitter etc...
why the colors are different in different social?
dominant yellow in google+
https://plus.google.com/u/0/11434815857 … 1901460364
https://www.facebook.com/walterfantauzz … =1&theater
 w. Color & Design Theory 101.
Ones choice of background color matters. Take for instance an egg & place it against a dark background. The egg will appear brighter. Take that same egg & place it against a light colored backgrounds, the egg's white shell will appear muted to the human eye.
Photographer
walterfantauzzi
Posts: 210
Rome, Lazio, Italy
Farenell Photography wrote:
Color & Design Theory 101.
Ones choice of background color matters. Take for instance an egg & place it against a dark background. The egg will appear brighter. Take that same egg & place it against a light colored backgrounds, the egg's white shell will appear muted to the human eye. (Y)
Photographer
walterfantauzzi
Posts: 210
Rome, Lazio, Italy
Krunoslav Stifter wrote:
Edit: ups, I just realized you were maybe asking a web design question, lol. Were you?
I assume it's a standard question, "why my colors look different online" But I will leave the answer it might help someone else.
Depends on what web browsers you are using with what settings as well as what color profile you have embedded and preserved in your images?
I see no difference between your images but that is specific to me. I imagine most people will not have the same settings as me.
But here is what you need to do.
1. Save all your images with the embedded sRGB color profile.
2. Use modern browser like Firefox or Chrome.
3. If the color profile is not stripped, you should be able to see correct colors.
4. Some website when you upload the images, tend to compress you image and some also strip your profile.
5. Once the profile has been striped or if you have not embedded it yourself, even the modern browsers won't be able to show the color properly. This is because I believe Chrome, Safari and Firefox by default only read tagged images. But don't color manage non tagged images.
6. Only browser that supports color management even for untagged images is Firefox but it's a hidden feature that you have to manually activate. I have it activated and that is the reason I see no difference between your images.
7. If you want to learn more I have a detailed tutorial on it. Real World Retouching: Practical Guide to Preparing and Sending Images to The Client https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpQL8iK … 4Uv8Oc4sr4
Cheers! great!!!! I'll see the video
Photographer
Carl Herbert
Posts: 387
Bellevue, Washington, US
My film friends and I have noticed differences. Facebook especially has tinkered with images in some very noticeable ways. I believe their motivation is mostly to minimize the sizes of images they have to serve to users, but I think they have experimented with color and contrast changes too. I think they might think they are doing smart things, but I think they might be misleading themselves.
It's hard to know what you will get from Facebook from one week to the next because they are constantly fiddling with it. It's one of the reasons you really can't take Facebook seriously.
Retoucher
Steven Burnette Retouch
Posts: 338
Mount Vernon, New York, US
The simple answer is that each social network has their own individual post processing systems that automatically does its thing to your images during upload. So all you can do is prepare your files as best you can for each social network to minimize unwanted changes after upload, but the same image will never look uniform across all the social networks (You will only get grey hairs).
Retoucher
Barry Green Retouching
Posts: 25
High Wycombe, England, United Kingdom
Krunoslav Stifter wrote:
But here is what you need to do.
6. Only browser that supports color management even for untagged images is Firefox but it's a hidden feature that you have to manually activate. I have it activated and that is the reason I see no difference between your images.
7. If you want to learn more I have a detailed tutorial on it. Real World Retouching: Practical Guide to Preparing and Sending Images to The Client https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpQL8iK … 4Uv8Oc4sr4
Cheers! @Stifter
Great Video - really comprehensive.
re Firefox hidden feature. Looking iunder Tools > Options, I canot find it. Could you say where it is hidden?
Retoucher
Barry Green Retouching
Posts: 25
High Wycombe, England, United Kingdom
Pat Bateman wrote:
check out this link: http://ntown.at/de/2013/12/28/firefox-color-management/
worked for me Interesting. This link only works for me on Android devices. Win IE, Firefox and Google browsers all give the same error (below). Nonetheless, I got all the info and also to ICC test page. Thanks
"Blog
How To Enable Color Management in Firefox
Category : Education/Help · No Comments · by Patrick Zadrobilek 2013/12/28
Fatal error: Call to undefined function lacands_wp_filter_content_widget() in /home/nt000006/www/home/blog/wp-content/plugins/q2w3-inc-manager/q2w3-inc-manager.php(1137) : eval()'d code on line 1"
Retoucher
ST Retouch
Posts: 393
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Kruno gave great advice. Always save files with embedded sRGB profile for web. But even if you save files with sRGB standard color profiles, again it is possible to see different colors and different contrasts or washed look on different web sites. Why ? Because web sites work and show images based on 2 different image libraries. 1.GD library which is the old library who can't recognize color profiles and contrasts. 2. Imagemagick library which is modern library who recognize color profiles and contrasts. Many web sites still use GD library. Imagemagick library can be set on many different ways , to show sharper images, images with more/less contrasts, with more/less saturation , with more/less brightness. And many web sites have their own settings for Imagemagick library, and also many web sites ( even famous web sites ) don't know how to set Imagemagick library for best image preview  So you as a photographer can not do so much about web sites and their settings of Imagemagick or GD library and their knowledge about libraries which show images on pages. Always try to save images for web in sRGB color profile and that's all what you can do. The rest is up to web sites and their knowledge of settings Imagemagick library. If web sites have good settings for Imagemagick library your files will be perfect on their pages ( like you can see them in PS). If web sites don't have good settings for Imagemagick library- then you will see "washed look" of your files or similar color problems. Hope this helped, Best ST
Photographer
MC Seoul Photography
Posts: 469
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)
Farenell Photography wrote:
Color & Design Theory 101.
Ones choice of background color matters. Take for instance an egg & place it against a dark background. The egg will appear brighter. Take that same egg & place it against a light colored backgrounds, the egg's white shell will appear muted to the human eye. That's not the issue here at all. You can actually view the images without the website and see they are clearly different.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-TmfS … difica.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/ … 0987_o.jpg
They've clearly been tinted. There is a SNS app here in Korea that does the same thing, one of those location based micro blogging places. They tint everything inexplicably green. Really kills black and white photos.
Photographer
mophotoart
Posts: 2118
Wichita, Kansas, US
care more about the reliability of the color of the prints....monitor/printer calibration or the off source printing...learn your system, your reliable online print resources and your eyes...the older you get, the more color changes when you view it...Mo
Retoucher
a k mac
Posts: 476
London, England, United Kingdom
Apparently it's true that the colour receptors on the retina can deteriorate with age, but generally the brain makes compensations for this and so with most older people there is no significant issue. ![https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21186335/Colour%20Vision.jpg]()
Retoucher
Barry Green Retouching
Posts: 25
High Wycombe, England, United Kingdom
ST Retouch wrote:
Kruno gave great advice.
Always try to save images for web in sRGB color profile and that's all what you can do.
The rest is up to web sites and their knowledge of settings Imagemagick library.
If web sites have good settings for Imagemagick library your files will be perfect on their pages ( like you can see them in PS).
If web sites don't have good settings for Imagemagick library- then you will see "washed look" of your files or similar color problems.
Hope this helped,
Best
ST As an aside: If the image is to be printed, is there any difference between producing the JPG file using Save Image for Web, and Save As (JPEG)?
Retoucher
ST Retouch
Posts: 393
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Barry Green Photography wrote:
As an aside: If the image is to be printed, is there any difference between producing the JPG file using Save Image for Web, and Save As (JPEG)? Barry,
Save for web&devices command in PS is tool to convert and optimize your image from Adobe Color Profile ( or any other color profile you work ) to sRGB color profile for web.
Web is 72 pixels/inch.
For best results with prints you need 240 or 300 per inch.
Usually catalogs or magazines with a lot of copies are done with Offset and CMYK color profile.
Serious Fine art prints with very expensive photo papers are done with Adobe Color profile and also you can have and decent good results with sRGB color profile.
But for best results with fine art prints it is the best to save your files in Tiff format and to print them in serious print stores from Tiff.
I sell prints , very good friend of mine has serious print store so I made test between Adobe JPG and Tiff format and I can see difference in quality.
Maybe ordinary customers which order prints can not see that difference but you as a photographer can see difference in quality.
I am not expert with printing but friend of mine told me to always keep and save files in Tiff for serious fine art prints, and he has right , he knows better because he has professional print store.
So from my experience for serious fine art prints always keep your files in Tiff .
If is necessary you can always convert very easy files from Tiff to JPG.
I have tested last week with him new Noritsu 37 HD which he bought with amazing 640 dpi from Tiff and results were more then stunning , I could not believe the quality of prints - prints are better then you can see them on Mac screen
http://www.noritsu.com/37HD.html
Hope this helped
Best
ST
|
w.
