# colors in photoshop...



## wxnut (Aug 18, 2008)

So I edit my photos in CS2 to look like I want them to look. After I post them to the net and look at it on the same monitor, it looks dull and the colors just do not pop like it looked while open in CS2. Are their some settings I messed up somewhere?

I start out RAW, edit, save as a jpg, then upload it to my server. 

Thank you for your time,

Doug Raflik


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 18, 2008)

After you save them from CS2, open them in windows picture viewer, do the colors look the same, then different after you post them online? The online uploader may be reducing the quality. I dont know much about color spaces, someone else may provide a better explanation


----------



## wxnut (Aug 18, 2008)

When opened up with other graphic programs, they look like I described, (dull) so it seems to be a photoshop problem.


----------



## tempra (Aug 18, 2008)

Set your colour space to sRGB in photoshop, it's probably set to adobe RGB which displays great in PS but dull and horrible on the net - most browsers will only support sRGB, so edit in that.


----------



## wxnut (Aug 18, 2008)

That was it!!! Thanks. Question now is will this effect my prints when I send them to the lab?


----------



## tempra (Aug 18, 2008)

wxnut said:


> That was it!!! Thanks. Question now is will this effect my prints when I send them to the lab?



It's probably worth asking your lab what colour space they use, lots of them use sRGB or their printers convert the files to sRGB before printing.

If they use a different colour space, then you would have to create two separate files, but whichever one, you can convert them in PS to whatever colour space you require (as long as it's installed) then export them to a print file.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 18, 2008)

It's a colour management issue. sRGB is a standard. If a lab is not setup to read IEC profiles directly out of the file then they will assume it is sRGB.

Generally if you want to avoid a colossal headache then in camera raw (or in the camera depending on where you get your files from) set it to sRGB and not AdobeRGB, and then ignore it. Otherwise it's a lot to learn, and a lot of steps during the process to get right.


----------



## Dmitri (Aug 18, 2008)

Good answers. Some questions

1: Is there a way to set the default to sRGB in Raw or PS? I couldn't seem to find any way to do this.
*EDIT*: Nevermind. I just found out that after setting one to sRGB, it becomes the default.
2: I also spotted in Raw to use photos at 16 bits instead of 8 bits. I know 8 bits is highest for internet, but does 16 or 8 matter when printing?

Any other tips


----------



## tempra (Aug 18, 2008)

16 bit will give you maximum amount of colours and information, this helps when you are post processing.

For printing, the same applies as long as your printer can interpret the 16bit file however if you are uploading it to an online printer or taking it to a lab they may only deal with 8 bit images - also some filters won't work on 16 bit in PS so you have to convert it to 8 bit.

That help?


----------



## Dmitri (Aug 18, 2008)

tempra said:


> 16 bit will give you maximum amount of colours and information, this helps when you are post processing.
> 
> For printing, the same applies as long as your printer can interpret the 16bit file however if you are uploading it to an online printer or taking it to a lab they may only deal with 8 bit images - also some filters won't work on 16 bit in PS so you have to convert it to 8 bit.
> 
> That help?



lol I think so. You're saying keep it 8 bit unless I'm working pro on a magazine cover or something?


----------



## tempra (Aug 18, 2008)

Dmitri said:


> lol I think so. You're saying keep it 8 bit unless I'm working pro on a magazine cover or something?



It really depends on how much control you want, how much storage space you have and how much grunt your PC has.

I just did a quick trial and an 8 bit tiff exports at 36.4mb whereas the same file as a 16 bit tiff exports at 72.8mb - both at 300dpi

*checks prices on new hard drives*


----------



## Dmitri (Aug 18, 2008)

tempra said:


> It really depends on how much control you want, how much storage space you have and how much grunt your PC has.
> 
> I just did a quick trial and an 8 bit tiff exports at 36.4mb whereas the same file as a 16 bit tiff exports at 72.8mb - both at 300dpi
> 
> *checks prices on new hard drives*




 Gotcha. I'll stick with 8 bit then, until I have some reason to do otherwise. Thanks Tempra


----------



## icassell (Aug 18, 2008)

Garbz said:


> It's a colour management issue. sRGB is a standard. If a lab is not setup to read IEC profiles directly out of the file then they will assume it is sRGB.
> 
> Generally if you want to avoid a colossal headache then in camera raw (or in the camera depending on where you get your files from) set it to sRGB and not AdobeRGB, and then ignore it. Otherwise it's a lot to learn, and a lot of steps during the process to get right.



Here's a good link I found to explain sRGB vs Adobe RGB

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html


----------



## Garbz (Aug 19, 2008)

Editing yes, printing no. Process in 16bit and then convert to 8bit before saving when you're done.

Consider that in the sRGB colour space most people can't visually tell the difference between the RGB value 64,234,45 and the value 64,233,45 because the 8bit value gives you 16.7million colour combinations. 

But when you're changing values and the filters are approximating the new colours the extra bit of precision helps. Especially if you're making an image darker. Consider a half exposed two colours. 128,64,128, and 128,63,128, doubling the brightness gives 255,128,255 and 255,126,255.

Crude example but can you see how the error increased? You have nothing to lose really storing an 8bit file if you don't plan to re-edit, but you have a lot to lose if you don't edit in 16bit.


----------



## PNA (Aug 19, 2008)

icassell said:


> Here's a good link I found to explain sRGB vs Adobe RGB
> 
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm


 

This was an interesting article and explanition of the issue, thanks icassell.:thumbup:


----------



## Dmitri (Aug 20, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Editing yes, printing no. Process in 16bit and then convert to 8bit before saving when you're done.
> 
> Consider that in the sRGB colour space most people can't visually tell the difference between the RGB value 64,234,45 and the value 64,233,45 because the 8bit value gives you 16.7million colour combinations.
> 
> ...




aaaha! I see what you're saying... if you convert to 8 bit before PP than a good chance of catching a case of posterization? I understand, I understand, and good thinking.

After that, I think I'll start saving my PSD is 16 bit and convert to 8 bit before JPEGing.

Thanks Garz


----------

