Windows 7 Color discrepancy w/Photoshop/Lightroom/Win Photo Viewer... need help

[Harold Fritsche]

Recently I decided to put up a website, using Smugmug. After creating it and uploading a few of my photos, I noticed significant desaturation of color, not drastic but significant. The vibrant colors of a golden sunset on red rocks is noticeably desaturated, making it appear somewhat drab.


At first I suspected the Smugmug site. After discussion with their help desk and some further investigation and thought, I no longer believe that. I have found that the only 3 programs that display my photos normally are Lightroom, Photoshop, and Windows Photo Viewer. If I import into anything else, Word, Excel, MS Paint, etc., the photos are "drab".


If I email any of these photos, they are received (on numerous devices) in their "drab" condition. I have sent them to my wife's PC laptop, and her iPad... drab. I have pulled up the Smugmug website on other computers... drab. However, if I take any of these emailed photos, or download one back from the website and pull it into LR, PS, or Win Photo Viewer, it is back to normal.


My monitor is calibrated regularly using Spyder 3. One complicating factor... I very recently replaced my graphics card. I'm using a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970. Drivers are up to date.


I'm at a loss and could really use some help.


Thx,

Harold Fritsche

Win 7
NVIDIA GTX 970 GPU
Lightroom CC 2015
Photoshop CC 2014

 

[kemical]

Hi Harold,
the only thing I can think of is that the apps which display the photos correctly or 'not drab' are dedicated photo applications some of which are professional in nature. I'm not sure what it is exactly that makes them different but I'm sure a dedicated Photoshop forum or similar would perhaps be the best place to ask (unless of course someone here posts the information). One of my ex girlfriends is a professional photographer and wouldn't use anything else but Photoshop simply because of the way it displayed on screen (colour wise).

 

[Pauli]

Don't know it really, but we have a zillion variations, and not all work with all. The deeper you go in specialization, the more you may cut out standard measures, and "ordinary people" may not have that in use. Nothing wrong with you or your system, but perhaps saving and sending in more accustomed ways could provide the way to truly share?

With more and more variation, more and more people are actually cut off. High heads are there, but plain people? And it's very difficult to force to adapt a new application on anyone.

Some things just go to fast, for many. And like kemical hints, some may be professional = costly, and not everyone understands them or wants them.

Appreciation to your effort, Harold.

 

[OTT]

What kemical and Pauli said, different hardware...

Or just a thought : Could it be that these programs use the full power of your high-end NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and the other programs are/can not ?

OTT

 

[Pauli]

It might be, but should it really affect the receiving part? Other than in speed or, say HD capability? Possible, quite so.

Downgrading would be an option?

 

[Harold Fritsche]

Thx for taking time to reply guys. Let me post a screen shot.
If you can see it as I can, it illustrates the difference and it is not trivial. I know sRGB has a smaller palette of colors, but they should be no less vivid. And I see photography websites all over the internet that post magnificent photos. Should I not be able to do the same?

 

[Pauli]

As a photographer by profession, I'd say it's a difference in color balance. Quite common with films already, and with different monitors and everything nowadays, I wouldn't consider it a catastrophe. Different monitors show in different ways, different sends send in different ways, received in different ways by different receivers, and looking with different monitors these receivers may see very differerent. THAT'S precisely why pro's are so careful about everything: you have to send the right red, and the receiver has to have the right red to come through. Otherwise it's like singing blaah but receiver gets bleeh...

You might try to send it as a plain image, even as a .zip, thus it might get through as original as possible?

"What you send, is not received". There may be something with settings, but I doubt this can be 100% secured. Unless through professional channel. And I wouldn't even trust those.

Color balance and alpha and everything have to fit.

It's very tender. But it makes the art of photography still live. In a way, Ansel Adams had it easier, even if he had it much tougher. But labor still goes on, perfection sought by every serious soul hasn't still been found, but we struggle - don't we?

What to do, I don't know. Just keep on taking good pictures. "The decisive moment" etc. In nature photography, Danish Jesper Christensen has taken some marvelous pics. I have him in Google+ I'm not so good in sharing... but if you find him, he has some great takes..

Jolly good, what you have there. Love of beauty, of massive structures, sensitive lines, be they natural monuments or insect made or man made Colosseums, they are remarkable! Let us marvel them! Small lines or big buildings, just beautiful!



We have so much beautiful. Cherish.

Dearly,

Pauli

 

[OTT]

Does it look the same in another browser ?

OTT

 

[ussnorway]

Thx for taking time to reply guys. Let me post a screen shot.
If you can see it as I can, it illustrates the difference and it is not trivial. I know sRGB has a smaller palette of colors, but they should be no less vivid. And I see photography websites all over the internet that post magnificent photos. Should I not be able to do the same?

FYI the two images in your screenshot are different... the one on the left is P10Jan-059HDR.jpg and the one on the right is P10Jan-059HDR-M.jpg ... thats why they look different and I assume the website hoster helpfully did this as some kind of auto-process during the up link in order to save space/ loading time.

If you look at P10Jan-059HDR-M.jpg in photoshop the effect is very clear its not the browser but the image it self has lost colour.

edit: Another thing that could have happened is you used Lightroom to touch up the image but then posted the old pre-touched image instead… easy enough to do because lightroom doesn't override the old image during the editing process as that would delete your back up.

 

[OTT]

However, if I take any of these emailed photos, or download one back from the website and pull it into LR, PS, or Win Photo Viewer, it is back to normal.

The topic starter stated the above ?

OTT

 

[ussnorway]

Yes well when two images have almost the same name its very easy to mix them up and assume they are the same image when they are not.

btw I only down loaded P10Jan-059HDR-M.jpg from the website for the example and have now deleted it from my system.

 

[Harold Fritsche]

Actually Ott, I installed Firefox (someone told me that it was the only browser that was "color managed". When I viewed the website in Firefox, everything was beautiful.

For USSNorway... I'm not sure about the -M, perhaps you're right about the website hoster adding that. I had uploaded several iterations and the screenshot I presented was meant to illustrate the difference between the two.
On your second point, however, are you suggesting that you downloaded one of the images, took it into PS and it still looked drab? I can't tell for sure without a comparison, but your screen shot looks pretty normal. BTW, what browser did you use to view the website?
Re: Lightroom... When you export an image, a new image is created WITH adjustments. That's the way it is supposed to do it and in my experience always has.

 

[Harold Fritsche]

USSNorway... FYI, I'm not at all concerned if you have one of my images on your system.

 

[ussnorway]

USSNorway... FYI, I'm not at all concerned if you have one of my images on your system.

Thanks but I am... I don't take other peoples work.

On your second point, however, are you suggesting that you downloaded one of the images, took it into PS and it still looked drab?

Yes... your P10Jan-059HDR-M.jpg from the web is not the same image as the good one you show in your (left-hand) screenshot.

I can't tell for sure without a comparison, but your screen shot looks pretty normal. BTW, what browser did you use to view the website?

this screen is one of your web images in 3 views; Iexplorer, Firefox and WMV

 

[Harold Fritsche]

Correct me if I'm wrong. All three of those look identical and all look correct... do you agree?

I did the same thing earlier. After download, I reimported it into LR and viewed it there, and outside LR in Win Photo Viewer. In my case, though, the colors were correct. This is getting stranger by the minute.

 

[ussnorway]

Correct me if I'm wrong. All three of those look identical and all look correct... do you agree?

Yes however have a look at this one,

the top 3 are Iexplorer, downloaded image and firefox but the bottom one is what you posted as it should look like...
p.s your website has a -s, -m and -l copy of this image to make the javascript display but they all look drab: (your term) to me.

 

[Harold Fritsche]

First... let me say that I appreciate the time you are devoting to this thing. Thank you.

That said, is it just me or is this getting stranger by the minute. I think what I am seeing is that in the above example (the Grand Canyon photo) you showed a screenshot from IE, FF, and WPV, and all looked correct. Now in the latest example, you show IE, FF and WPV of a downloaded image and all are "drab".

Let me try to get straight.
1) When I view my website in Firefox, all appears normal. Is that your experience as well?
2) When I view my website in IE, all appears desaturated to some extent. Is that your experience?
3) When I download the image from the website, when viewed in PS or WPV, the image looks normal. Is that your experience?

Separately, as a matter of curiosity, how are you able to download these images? Other than a screen capture, the website isn't supposed to allow for that.

 

[ussnorway]

Your welcome mate.

1. Firefox does have superior rendering to Iexplorer but it's very slight to human eyes so most non-professionals wouldn't care. If you look at the sun setting over the mountains image (even allowing for the quality loss from a screenshot and the fact that its only a J-peg) the yellow sunset itself in the right hand image is richer.

1a. Firefox also renders faster than Iexplorer which is another reason photographers like it… most photo web sites tend to host very large images so every little bit helps.

1b, However in this case the browser used is irrelevant because it is the image itself that has lost colour… that is why I picked the sunset image both to show the yellow and prove some of the images look (if not perfect then at least) fine.

2. If we accept the issue isn't the browser and also that not every image has the same problem then that leaves two possible causes.

2a. some kind of intermittent transmission error due to your ftp uploader, possibly losing connection or more likely seeing that the file being uploaded has the same name/ details as the one already up there and deciding to skip that file to save space… a common option with some programs but one that can normally be overridden by the human operator.

2b. Human error is always possible when dealing with complex systems and its possible that when you down/up load the files, one or two of them get mixed up.

3. Sorry but it would be irresponsible of me to post a 'how too' for bypassing internet security software. To be fair the website does have safeguards in place but there is no such beast as a hack-proof website … I'm a web-designer, software developer and Hacker from way back, so I know my way around systems like these.

 

[OTT]

Actually Ott, I installed Firefox (someone told me that it was the only browser that was "color managed". When I viewed the website in Firefox, everything was beautiful.

If we accept the issue isn't the browser...

Too many things are not lining up here, strange conclusions...

@TopicStarter : You should really try another website and compare the results !

OTT

 

[Harold Fritsche]

Before I post I want to say that you have both been more than generous with your time and I'm going to stop beating this horse. I agree with OTT that "things are not lining up here, strange conclusions".

Without any hack, I have the capability to re-download my images from the Smugmug server. If the image colors were being altered during upload, I should download an altered image. But when I do so, and reimport into LR or PS, the photos display and manipulate correctly. I have made various adjustments and iterations and uploaded them many times. The results are absolutely consistent.

Using Firefox, none of the issues are there. Since my last post, I have viewed a number of "photo" websites (both personal and commercial) and directly compared them using Firefox and IE side-by-side. I've seen the following results...
1) Some sites have a desaturation problem similar to mine. Some do not.
2) On sites WITH the problem, the issue is site-wide. That is, not limited to only isolated images.
3) On sites WITHOUT the problem, ALL images are identical and appear fully saturated (Firefox to IE).
4) In no case do images appear better or "more correct" in IE than in FF. If there is a discrepancy, the IE images always appear degraded.

Best conclusion... it IS browser related, and perhaps also server related. Beyond that, it's out of my league.

I'm sure you guys are tired of this topic. I know that I am. I thank you again for your time and willingness to lend a hand.

Harold