Photoshop creating flat images?

[R1Joel]

Hey everyone,
I am back with another question. Sorry I haven't been active on here much, I am struggling a bit with some health problems at the moment.

Anyway in my spare time I have been trying to learn a bit about Photoshop. I have been trying to learn the art of blending. I have been impressed with the results so far vs HDR. My problem seems to be though that I get the photo looking good in PS, but when I save it the photo kind of goes flat and dull. If I then import the Jpeg into Lightroom and export with no adjustments it will look good (how it did before saving from PS).
Is this a problem with PS or Faststone Image Viewer?

Also just another quick question while I'm here. Is there a way to move photos back to Lightroom from Photoshop? Like you can move photos from Lightroom to Photoshop?

Thanks for any replies. Much appreciated.

[Cricket]

R1Joel, the easiest way I find is to go from Lightroom (right click mouse button) and edit in PS then just save in PS as a tiff file and this should take it back to Lightroom as a tiff file. Then for printing save the Lightroom file as a Jpeg. I find there is no loss of quality this way. Anyway this is how I do but the experts may have different ideas

[ameerat42]

I'd like to see what you mean, Joel. Do a nice pic in Photoshop and post it.

As for "moving" pics between programs, they don't actually move. I know
Pshop can open an image in any folder. Perhaps LR needs to log them in
some sort of Library or Catalog. LR experts can explain.

[ricktas]

If it happens when you save the file. Then something in the save process is the cause. Can you tell us step-by-step, your process to save the image in photoshop?

Ie. Click on menu, File, File save as/save for web. And what is in each box of settings for the screens that appear. Cause one of those settings is bound to be the cause.

[Tannin]

Set the correct colour space.

Photoslug defaults to the outdated Adobe RBG colour space. Everything else on the the planet uses SRGB. (Except certain specialised image-specific applications. These are more powerful and flexible but usually way too complex and cumbersome for normal use outside the graphics industry.)

To set the colour space, you'd just go edit->preferences wouldn't you? Nope! You have to do it in Camera Raw. No-one knows why. Look down at the bottom centre of the Camera Raw screen to change it (16-bit SRGB is a good choice).

From memory, you have to go somewhere else on the sidebar to tell Photoslug to remember the change for the next time you use it. Doubtless some kind m,member will remind us. Or just Google for something like "set Photoshop to SRGB".

[ameerat42]

Set the correct colour space.

Photoslug defaults to the outdated Adobe RBG colour space. Everything else on the the planet uses SRGB. (Except certain specialised image-specific applications. These are more powerful and flexible but usually way too complex and cumbersome for normal use outside the graphics industry.)

To set the colour space, you'd just go edit->preferences wouldn't you? Nope! You have to do it in Camera Raw. No-one knows why. Look down at the bottom centre of the Camera Raw screen to change it (16-bit SRGB is a good choice).

From memory, you have to go somewhere else on the sidebar to tell Photoslug to remember the change for the next time you use it. Doubtless some kind m,member will remind us. Or just Google for something like "set Photoshop to SRGB".

[/RANT]

(What makes me think Tannin does not use Photoshop in favour of some image specific)

Now, Joel, as you were previously exhorted, post up an image or two so that we can start to determine just what the situation might be.
It may be a simple setting of color space, which one of us implicitly deficient Pshoppers might be able to help you with, otherwise your post
is just stuck in the Land of Lament.
Am(the same as before).

[Tannin]

Photoshop is like chemotherapy. It's expensive, everybody hates it, you have to wait ages for it, and it makes you feel terrible, but there are usually no practical alternatives.

Sadly, Am, I do use Photoshop.

PS: bet you $10 Joel's problem is what I said it was.

[NikonNellie]

I think you probably have your the colour profile on your camera set to Adobe RGB. After you finish processing in PS, before you save the file, you need to first change the colour profile to sRGB as Tannin mentioned.

Go to the "Edit" menu -> Convert to Profile -> choose sRGB IE61966-2.1 -> OK button.

[ameerat42]

It may well be. From memory, Joel is quite new to Pshop, and - if right on memory - he uses the free CS2 version.

[ameerat42]

...NN, and I think re-start Pshop?

[R1Joel]

Hi everyone, sorry for the slow reply. Strange thing is, I took two screenshots of an image I had for an example, one appeared 'flat' to me and the other I imported and exported from LR which looked fine to me. I then uploaded both the images to Photobucket and now they appear both to look fine. Maybe it was in my head?
Still I will check over the colour profiles next time and see if it happens again.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

[ricktas]

are you using a calibrated monitor?

[arthurking83]

I reckon Tannin is on the right track .. probably.

If PS is set to save the file to aRGB and when it saves the file it then strips all the exif data, including that note that the file is in aRGB, then some viewing programs will open the image in sRGB(this is how the world is set to operate.
The important part of the equation in this situation is that PS is removing the exif data .. not the colourspace itself!

FSViewer is colourspace aware so should view the file as it's intended.

In Lr tho, it's probably seeing some obscure catalog/hidden adobe specific info that tells it to open in aRGB .. so Lr can view the file correctly.
It's just that other programs may not see the hidden info.

[R1Joel]

Sorry for another slow reply. I'm not using a calibrated monitor.
Today I done another blend. Saved it as sRGB JPEG and it appeared flat again. Uploaded to Flickr and it was fine. So I went back to the file and instead of opening it in FSviewer (which shows it flat) I opened it in the standard Windows 10 photo viewer. It appeared fine again. So it must be something to do with FSviewer not recognising it or something? Not a big problem though.

[Mark L]

I always use a 16 bit ProPhotoRGB colour space for all editing and printing.

Good, can Joel access that with what he's using?

Today I done another blend. Saved it as sRGB JPEG and it appeared flat again.

What colour space did you work on it with before saving?

[arthurking83]

.....


What colour space did you work on it with before saving?

Shouldn't really matter.
While working in one colourspace and then saving to another, if the conversion is done properly to almost all users, it won't make much viewing difference.
The issue could be in the process used to do the conversion ... was it a conversion or was it an assign to process.
They are different things.

I have to disagree violently with John's above statement about the horror of sRGB.
it has been used successfully for many a year without people being harmed in any way .. I've even used it for large(30") high quality prints(by mistake mind you!) .. but my preference is to give the printer aRGB files!
To my eyes tho, the difference is really not something that I can see at all.
And if you do see a difference, then it's only because you have pushed the processing too far from what sRGB can display.

So that's really about the only other way I can suggest the OP to look at the issue he's having.

and FWIW, I use FSViewer all the time myself too, and in conjunction with Nikon's software, and I've used in concurrently with Lr as well.
While there's always been a difference in the way FSViewer renders a raw file compared to how Lr does, it's been true fro both sRGB and aRGB.
And I've noticed very slight differences in the way they respectively display jpg and tiff files .. but you kind'a had to look hard to see that.

Again to the OP. Can you see what colourspace the final image is set too. This info is in the exif data.

[John King]

sRGB is a truly warped, horrible colour space.

Yes, the web runs on it.

However it is both defective and deficient. Defective because of its tiny size (small colour gamut) and the colour axes are not symmetrical, and deficient because the green axis is shorter than the red axis, which is shorter than the blue axis.

aRGB has a reasonably large gamut and the colour axes are equal.

I always use a 16 bit ProPhotoRGB colour space for all editing and printing. I only ever save to 8 bit, sRGB JPEGs for the web and similar non-critical uses.

[ricktas]

I always use a 16 bit ProPhotoRGB colour space for all editing and printing. I only ever save to 8 bit, sRGB JPEGs for the web and similar non-critical uses.

Which interestingly brings in other issues, in that there are not many monitors that can display 100% of AdobeRGB and none that can display 100% of ProPhotoRGB (yet). And printing brings in its own issues again with printers not being able to render the full colourspaces.

So, can I ask why you are using a colourspace that you cannot accurately render, on screen or in print, at this point in tech development?

I agree that sRGB is deficient, but as most monitors and printers are limited to sRGB, then really we are seeing zero benefit in using anything else with a wider gamut, if we cannot see that extra gamut anyway.

[John King]

Gidday Rick

sRGB is a truly warped, horrible colour space.

Yes, the web runs on it.

However it is both defective and deficient. Defective because of its tiny size (small colour gamut) and the colour axes are not symmetrical, and deficient because the green axis is shorter than the red axis, which is shorter than the blue axis.

aRGB has a reasonably large gamut and the colour axes are equal.

I always use a 16 bit ProPhotoRGB colour space for all editing and printing. I only ever save to 8 bit, sRGB JPEGs for the web and similar non-critical uses.

Which interestingly brings in other issues, in that there are not many monitors that can display 100% of AdobeRGB and none that can display 100% of ProPhotoRGB (yet). And printing brings in its own issues again with printers not being able to render the full colourspaces.

So, can I ask why you are using a colourspace that you cannot accurately render, on screen or in print, at this point in tech development?

My ASUS PA246 monitors can display 98% of an aRGB colour space. They use a 12 bit colour lookup table and 10 bit P-IPS panel made by LG (?). This panel appears to be the same one used in various Eizo, HP and Dell monitors, and probably others. How many makers of 10 bit, aRGB, P-IPS, 1920x1200, 24.6" panels are there in the world? Not many, I would guess! It must be connected with an HDMI cable to use more than 8 bits. I only very rarely do colour corrections (other than WB), so rely on the (excellent) choice of colour filter array frequencies and curve shapes made by the Olympus optical engineers. I really like the way their choices render natural, neutral colours. For some, colour accuracy is not important. It is for me.

My Epson R3880 can print most of a ProPhotoRGB colour space. The colour lookup table in this printer was redesigned from that in the R3800. By also changing the magenta inks, it achieves a wider gamut than aRGB, particularly with saturated reds and yellows. This very wide gamut makes a big difference in some of my prints.

For example, I have printed the following image dozens of times using sRGB-8, sRGB-16, aRGB-8, aRGB-16 and ProPhotoRGB-16 (ProPhotoRGB is a very bad colour space to use with 8 bit processing). The differences are stark. Both sRGB print sets show insufficient ink being laid down to give any kind of accurate colour match. This almost certainly arises from the green channel being grossly deficient in the "pure red" parts of the image! Using either sRGB colour spaces also causes the blacks not to print as as pure blacks. The reflector areas are also not correct. There is a spot of sap on the leading edge of the bonnet next to the top left of the grill and I have used that as a reference point for measurement throughout, measuring just below and to the right of the spot. The colour numbers are all but identical over a (relatively) large area here, making minor cursor placement errors irrelevant. The colour numbers are relatively similar for aRGB and PPRGB, but dramatically different for sRGB. The green channel decreases to almost zero. This is with no PP other than conversion from RAW to the relevant colour bit depth and gamut, then printed.

Of course, this image has been converted to sRGB for web display, but when printed from an sRGB image the colour differences are very bad compared with either aRGB or PPRGB. My touchstone is to take a test print and put it on the part of the car photographed. The differences should not be such that I feel sick ... With sRGB prints, I feel sick!

Cars are as close to Pantone colours as we commonly see in the real world. Of course, the paints used are Pantone colours ...



With these wide gamut colour spaces, 16 bit processing gives greater editing and representational latitude without noticeable loss of data. This has been documented by Schewe and Fraser in "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5" at p.12 Figure 1-7 "Color spaces and clipping". A comparison of colour spaces below, from Blatner and Fraser "Real World Adobe Photoshop CS" p.179 Figure 5-13,



I think that SWOP CMYK is referencing the colour space of 4 colour printing rather than the far more modern 8 colour CMYK (C LC M LM Y K LK LLK) used in books these days. The latter printing colour space has patently got a far richer and wider gamut than the old four colour process.

I agree that sRGB is deficient, but as most monitors and printers are limited to sRGB, then really we are seeing zero benefit in using anything else with a wider gamut, if we cannot see that extra gamut anyway.

Almost all printers with two blacks and three colours will print an aRGB colour space IME. The Epson Rx880 series extend this considerably.

An aRGB monitor does not cost thousands these days. My first PA246Q cost me about $730 and the second about two years later only about $530. This monitor is no longer available, but Asus has made a replacement aRGB monitor (can't recall the model off the top of my head ... ), and it is not hugely expensive either. One needs to be careful when buying, as all but one Asus monitor only display sRGB.

Sorry for the long winded reply, but as I mentioned earlier, colour and colour spaces are very complex subjects when one digs a bit. I have done quite a bit of digging!

[arthurking83]

Also, using ProPhoto colourspace (almost certainly) won't help the OP in addressing the issue of why FSViewer is rendering the images flat!