What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Difference in white balance between windows photo view and photoshop


N

Navid Hekmat

Active Member
Messages
34
Likes
8
Hi everyone..this is my first thread.

Im using CC and windows 7. I have also spyder utility 3 (calibration) installed on my computer. When i open a raw image in photoshop, do adjustments and then click on "Open image" to process for example more on white balance and save the file (Save as) as a JPG and open the file with Windows photo view..i can see change between the image in photoshop and the image in windows photo view. Can anyone explain to me why this happens, and which output is the correct one? The one that is shows on windows photo view or photoshop? See the attachment of the motorcycle and notice the left top which is darker.

Also the second problem i have is when i have opened a raw image, made adjustments and click on "Open image". The image becomes very noisy. If i zoom in the picture then the noise disappears...if i zoom out then it appears again. See the doll.pics. My camera is Nikon D610

after.pngbefore.png


difference.png
 
Last edited:
The easiest way to get to the bottom of this is if you post both your PSD file, and the associated JPG file. Otherwise we will be forced to play "20 (or more) questions", LOL.

Tom M

PS - Note: to post your psd file, zip it, and then post the zip file as if it was an image file. The forum's uploading software will likely reject a PSD file, but won't know what to do with a zip file, so it will show up as a question mark in the thumbnail. Just press OK, and it should upload.

PPS - Note #2: BTW, posting screen grabs doesn't help very much because it does not show us the colors and tonality that you actually see. It only shows the input to the video card before the monitor ICC profile is applied.

PS #3 - Let's discuss one problem at a time. Let's first deal with the color issues, then we can turn to the noise issue.

PS #4 - I'll won't be able to respond further till mid-afternoon. I'm off to work.
 
Tom..thanks for your reply. I tried to paste two links directly to the psd and image file but it says i have to post 5 posts before submitting a link.

If i choose "insert image", it doesnt allow me to upload a zip file.
 
@Navid Hekmat...

There's a quirk with the upload of psd's to the forum.

When fully upload, the system will give you that message. Just go ahead with the post and click OK don't cancel.

If done as it should a normal upload, the file will appear in your post.


Or simply do as Tom directed by zipping it and uploading the zip.
 
i have now opened the jpg file with acdsee and the image looks like it does on photoshop. Hoever in windows photo gallery it doesnt look same...its then like the attachmene i made here. I guess it has to do with color management. Acdsee and photoshop uses the same, while windows photo viewer uses another one.

I use my calibatred file in color managent in windows. Hmmm..anyone?
 
Well first off we need to establish just what application you are comparing photoshop to....so far you've got a screen shot of Windows Picture Viewer (Which is so bad even Microsoft abandoned it years ago), then you mention in post #8 Windows Live View (Which is part of Windows Essentials) and now your latest post is using Windows Photo Gallery.

To be honest the most surprising thing is having a Spyder Calibration and then use Windows software....that well known image editing software development company....LOL.

Why compare to ANY Windows application...it just don't add up.

My answer to your original question therefore would be Photoshop.....all day long.

Anyway, regardless of that I did some tests on the image provided in 3 different Image Editing Software applications....and Windows Picture viewer. I don't have Windows Live View as its part of the 'Essentials' package and to be honest, I don't find it 'essential'.

Using Xnview, IrfanView, Photoshop and Windows Picture Viewer:
1. Opened the image in all 4 applications.
2. Zoomed to 100% in each....(Except WPV which doesn't have this option...so I guessed.)
3. Panned the image to the Top Left Corner.
4. Took a screen shot.
5. Panned to the Bottom Right.
6. Took a screen shot.
7. Opened screen shots in PS and cropped out a 300px square from the Top Left and Bottom Right corners of each.
8. Placed those 300px squares on a neutral background.
9. Stamped all the layers.
10. Added a 'Threshold' adjustment layer.
11. Adjust threshold to taste.

The results...

no_difference.png

Not a lot of difference in them so as far as the 'Image Data' is concerned nothing is changing.

To sum up:
If you need to compare an image use anything but Windows applications.
Trust Photoshop....its what it was written for after all. :)

Regards.
MrTom.
 
Sorry, but because of lack of time, this has to be shorter than I would like. Fortunately, the explanation in your case is straightforward. Unfortunately, the cure is not quite so simple.

The explanation:

The working color space you used for the PS file that you uploaded is Adobe RGB (1998). When you then saved it as a JPG, the JPG inherited the same color space. I checked, and it is indeed also tagged as Adobe RGB.

Only fully ICC-compliant (aka, "color space aware") applications will be able to correctly display files tagged as "Adobe RGB" (or other non-sRGB tags). Most will not. Many browsers still have problems with anything other than sRGB. This is precisely the reason for the oft-repeated rule: "If it's for the web, convert to sRGB". You are have run into the same lack of ICC-compliance with some of the applications you have used to view it, specifically, the windows photo viewing program that you tried. BTW, I don't have ACDsee, but you say that it looks the same as in PS (which thankfully IS fully ICC compliant), so, chances are that ACDsee also is fully compliant, but be cautious - until you do a full set of tests, regard this conclusion as tentative.

Finally, note that these differences in appearance that you are seeing have (almost) nothing to do with the profiling and calibration of your monitor. The only thing monitor calibration does is attempt to make a file (of any type) viewed on your monitor look as close as possible to what other people see if they use the same viewing software, but have different video cards, different monitors, etc. It does not (directly) speak directly to differences between different file types on the same system.

The cure:

If the file is to be viewed by people who don't know anything about ICC-compliance, whether they will be using a web browser or other software to view the file, then you really have only one choice: You must convert all of your output to sRGB. The widest range of software (including browsers, legacy programs, etc.) will handle this correctly.

There are (at least) two ways to do this. (a) You can use PS's "File / Save for Web" tool; or, (b) You can convert (NOT assign) your PSD file to sRGB and save it as a new name. Then, when you do a simple "Save as", it will always be in sRGB, and you won't have to use the special "Save for Web" feature.

Unfortunately, here's where the problem I referred to at the start of this post raises it's head. In the two mouse files that you posted, the region of the item near the hot spot (ie, closest to the viewer) is in gamut for Adobe RGB, but is pretty far out of gamut for sRGB. So, when you convert to sRGB, the colors in this area will change, but the colors in the remainder of the object won't. Sometimes, one gets lucky, and by carefully selecting a different rendering intent, black point compensation, and other conversion settings, you can minimize this color shift. Unfortunately, this area is so far OOG that these adjustments make little difference. You also need to realize that this area is even further out of gamut for standard SWOP CMYK printing, so if this file is to be printed on a standard large volume offset press, it's going to look funky (ie, different colors in different areas).

If you truly need the color and color gradations shown in the Adobe RGB version to look reasonably good, you have little choice except to change the color of the red / pink area slightly to get all areas to become in gamut so there is no abrupt change in color from one are to the next. As you are doing this, the "Proof setup", "Proof colors" and "Gamut warning" tools (under the "View menu") are your friends.

HTH,

Tom M
 
Last edited:
PS - If you are doing a lot of work with colors that are OOG for sRGB, I strongly recommend you get yourself a wide gamut monitor. Good quality ones are not, but if you are doing such work professionally, it's almost essential. It will make viewing / diagnosing such difficulties much easier, faster, etc.. You will be able to state with confidence that what you see is compliant with industry best practices.

Also, if you go wide-gamut, your calibrator hardware must be able to accurately detect colors beyond the usual sRGB gamut. In other words, your calibrator system, not just the monitor also has to be certified to be wide gamut. I use one of the latest wide gamut NEC monitors with its own calibration system, and it is a god-send.

HTH,

Tom M
 
PPS - Why don't you start a new thread for the noise problem that you mentioned in your first post. When you do, please also post the files associated with that project, not just screen shots.

Cheers,

Tom M
 
MrTom and Tom Mann..your explanation made it clear. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. So in general, to view an image, such as in a folder on your harddrive,, one should actually "never" use "Windows photo viewer" when you have done some editing to it in photoshop, am i right? Because it cannot display in adobe rgb and it will not show correct. Right?

What ICC-compliant picture viewer would you recommend to open and view pictures? As far as i know every opens there pictures in "Windows photo viewer". May be i should then just use ACDSEE then, since it seems to be ICC compliance. Once again Thanks. I appreciate it.
 
Navid Hekmat said:
...MrTom and Tom Mann..your explanation made it clear. I appreciate it very much. Thank you...
Click to expand...

No worries....I bet you're glad Mr Manns answer was the short version eh? (I needed a shave after reading it!)
Just kiddin' Mr Mann....an excellent answer as always. :thumbsup:


Navid Hekmat said:
...So in general, to view an image, such as in a folder on your harddrive,, one should actually "never" use "Windows photo viewer" when you have done some editing to it in photoshop, am i right?...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 'never' but I wouldn't take 'what you see is what you HAVE' to be 100% correct....you've proved that.

If you're in any doubt about an image just open it in PS and view it there.....as Mr Mann says you can always change the colour profile if its not right and if it is then you've no need to do anything except sit back and look at it.

In a nutshell ANY Microsoft / Windows based application cannot be trusted, they may be fine [debateable] with writing an OS but when it comes to image editing you could write what they know about it on the back of a stamp.......twice.

Personally I'd just stick with PS and / or XnView or Irfanview for a quick 'look'.

Regards.
MrTom.
 
For general handling / viewing of image files (in any common file format and color space), I use Adobe Bridge, Adobe Lightroom, Photo Mechanic 5, and other applications designed specifically for imaging pros that I know (ie, I've personally tested, not just relied on their advertising claims) to be fully ICC-compliant.

However, I NEVER EVER EVER output a JPG with any color profile other than sRGB - it's just asking for trouble, so if I want to quickly look at one of my JPGs, I can use Windows programs including Photo Viewer, old legacy apps, etc. without any hesitation, and I often do this rather than opening up a larger, slower-to-load program such as the ones I mentioned above. I see absolutely no reason ever to make a JPG anything other than sRGB. For example, if you need to transfer a wide gamut file to a printer, you are probably concerned about other aspects of quality (eg, JPG compression artifacts), so you wouldn't use a JPG anyway.

HTH,

Tom M
 
Back
Top