Naughty Naughty File Saving!

[Zeeke]

Dont know if others have noticed this.. or others do this... but all my files for the web I use Photoshop and save it as "Save for Web"... and while at Oneputt's place this afternoon i noticed he saved in "Save As"... and we viewed the difference between an image "Save As" and "Save for Web" and the Save for web seriously stuffs a good image... so from now on ill be using Save As.. .. anyways... just thought id post this up.. because others might be using Save for web... and now i wont be using it... heres a sample.. Saved as.. then Saved for web

Tim

"Saved As"


"Saved for Web"

[mudder]

Hmmm, never used save for web as I thought it stripped EXIF... I've always just changed profile to sRGB, resized, 8 bit, then save as jpeg.

[Mal]

Good example of why you should never use save for the web!!!
Maybe this thread should be moved to the beginners questions.

[Alpha_7]

Good example of why you should never use save for the web!!!
Maybe this thread should be moved to the beginners questions.

Or linked into one of the many other (Save for Web is bad) threads.
Pity you can't hack the Photoshop tool bar up and remove it altogther.

[Jamie]

Ok ill stop doing it from now on.

mudder (or others) - what does changing the profile to sRGB and 8 bit do?

Im seriously lacking in PS ability but i am getting better.

[avkomp]

I came to the same conclusion last week.
prior to that I thought save for web was the thing to dol.
I thought it converted to srgb but found out it stripped the profile out and that with no profile some browsers assume srgb and you get approximately what you wanted.
convert to profile now is what I do. leaves it to no doubt
Steve

[kipper]

I used to be a Save For Web user but we discussed this a while back in another thread. If profiles converted correcly, an image saved in either looks identical however the Save For Web will have EXIF and IPTC information removed as it tries to maximize size. Save For Web is best suited for things like images that make up a page look and feel.

[Mal]

Good example of why you should never use save for the web!!!
Maybe this thread should be moved to the beginners questions.

Or linked into one of the many other (Save for Web is bad) threads.
Pity you can't hack the Photoshop tool bar up and remove it altogther.

Craig, it is a really handy funtion when you have to add a whole lot of photos of "stock" to your companies website and you are told that they have to be "really small" But apart from that yes maybe it should be removed

[Zeeke]

Didnt realise this topic had been raised before... i did look in Beginners forum for a couple of pages to check it hasnt been done before.. but if its an inconvenience.. just delete this post..

Tim

[Alpha_7]

Didnt realise this topic had been raised before... i did look in Beginners forum for a couple of pages to check it hasnt been done before.. but if its an inconvenience.. just delete this post..

Tim

Tim - It's a worthy question, and by the response here your not the only one that has missed this topic before, so from your question has come information to benefit many So no need to delete the post, and it certainly isn't incoventient, I just wanted to mention that it had been mentioned before, if anyone wanted to dig further for more detail.

[mudder]

...mudder (or others) - what does changing the profile to sRGB and 8 bit do?

I think that the sRGB gamut (range of colors) is limited to what are considered "safe" colors that web apps (like IE) can display, whereas aRGB has a wider color range and maybe better suited for PP. sRGB is possibly just a safer bet for an image that's intended for web viewing...

By changing to 8 bit, I just meant that I changed from the original 16 bit mode (in PS) to 8 bit in order to save as jpeg, as jpeg are effectively 8 bit (I think)... jpeg is not a "save as" option in PSCS when working in 16 bit.

I remember an example where one of the guys here posted in both sRGB and aRGB, I'll have a play with the search and see if I can find it for you...

Back later

[mudder]

...mudder (or others) - what does changing the profile to sRGB and 8 bit do?

Just found these (but you'll need to cut & paste the properties from the images into another browser window to view the images due to a pixspot issue)...

Just did a quick search and found these, some interesting reading and info etc...
http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php? ... light=srgb
http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php? ... light=srgb

Cheers.

[shakey]

Is it just me? I can't tell the difference between the two images..not on my dell laptop screen anyway..

[big pix]

Is it just me? I can't tell the difference between the two images..not on my dell laptop screen anyway..

laptop screens are not the best for the evaluation of images for correct colour........... even my Powerbook screen is not much chop .......

[shakey]

Is it just me? I can't tell the difference between the two images..not on my dell laptop screen anyway..

laptop screens are not the best for the evaluation of images for correct colour........... even my Powerbook screen is not much chop .......

That's why I do all my serious stuff on a profiled CRT ':D'

However that system isn't connected to the internet so I do the memory stick shuffle if I want to transfer stuff between the two.

Still...is there an obvious (or even subtle) difference between the 2 images? The most I can see is a little more detail in the shadows in the "save for web" version

[Grev]

I really hate it when you're working with the aRGB space and then forget to change it to sRGB for the web and then the final output jpeg loses all the colour that was in the original.

Come on browsers, read aRGB already!!!

[Aussie Dave]

You could always make your own PS Action, so with one mouse-click, you convert your image to sRGB, then to 8bit (if it isn't already), and then open the "save as" dialogue box.

As long as you remember to use this action as your method of saving JPEG's, you shouldn't have any further problems.

And it saves you time.....

Also, aRGB (I believe) is really only a benefit for printing purposes (mainly at labs). Your monitor cannot see the entire gamut of the aRGB, so web browsers will probably never be manufactured to read these files....there's no advantage, unless monitor manufacturers change the workings of their monitors.

[leek]

This has been discussed many times before, but Luminous Landscape published an excellent article on aRGB vs. sRGB only last week...
It's here: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototip ... ebate.html