Poor image quality displayed in WPG

I have been disturbed for some time now with the poor image quality displayed
in Windows Photo Gallery. Photos appear over-saturated and darker in WPG
than any other display vehicle (eg: Photoshop, Windows Mail, IExplorer, MS
Word).

In researching this problem, I found others expressing the same problem WPG,
but saw no solution. Most responses I saw suggested ignoring WPG and instead
using a 3rd party program such as Google’s “Picasa�.

What I like about WPG is that it’s a quick and light-weight program for
viewing photos, and am hoping that someone out there can shed some light on
what the problem is with WPG, and how do I correct it?

A sample image comparison: left side image in PhotoShop; right side image in
WPG.
http://localsbackyard.com/wpg.jpg

TIA for any suggestions and/or solutions!

Gee

Did you try any of the "Fix" options in the Preview screen? There are some
tools and options to adjust brightness, contrast, color, etc.

"gee" <> wrote in message
news:5DA7B3C3-758E-4144-A4AB-...
>I have been disturbed for some time now with the poor image quality
>displayed
> in Windows Photo Gallery. Photos appear over-saturated and darker in WPG
> than any other display vehicle (eg: Photoshop, Windows Mail, IExplorer, MS
> Word).
>
> In researching this problem, I found others expressing the same problem
> WPG,
> but saw no solution. Most responses I saw suggested ignoring WPG and
> instead
> using a 3rd party program such as Google’s “Picasa�.
>
> What I like about WPG is that it’s a quick and light-weight program for
> viewing photos, and am hoping that someone out there can shed some light
> on
> what the problem is with WPG, and how do I correct it?
>
> A sample image comparison: left side image in PhotoShop; right side image
> in
> WPG.
> http://localsbackyard.com/wpg.jpg
>
> TIA for any suggestions and/or solutions!
>
> Gee
>

John, Those "Fix" options you suggest using would physically alter (edit)
the characteristics of the image. I believe the OP is asking how to correct
windows color management so that WPG standard display qualities match those
of the color management of Photoshop etc.

To the OP, I suggest you check windows color management settings in the
control panel to be certain it's the same as the color management settings
you use in those other programs. I'm betting it isn't and windows is using
some other profile that is causing the difference you're experiencing (i.e.
windows is using something other than than the ADOBE rgb you're likely using
in Photoshop etc.). Sorry I can't be more specific than that but without
being at your machine that's as close as I can get.


"John Hanley" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Did you try any of the "Fix" options in the Preview screen? There are
> some tools and options to adjust brightness, contrast, color, etc.
>
> "gee" <> wrote in message
> news:5DA7B3C3-758E-4144-A4AB-...
>>I have been disturbed for some time now with the poor image quality
>>displayed
>> in Windows Photo Gallery. Photos appear over-saturated and darker in WPG
>> than any other display vehicle (eg: Photoshop, Windows Mail, IExplorer,
>> MS
>> Word).
>>
>> In researching this problem, I found others expressing the same problem
>> WPG,
>> but saw no solution. Most responses I saw suggested ignoring WPG and
>> instead
>> using a 3rd party program such as Google’s “Picasa�.
>>
>> What I like about WPG is that it’s a quick and light-weight program for
>> viewing photos, and am hoping that someone out there can shed some light
>> on
>> what the problem is with WPG, and how do I correct it?
>>
>> A sample image comparison: left side image in PhotoShop; right side image
>> in
>> WPG.
>> http://localsbackyard.com/wpg.jpg
>>
>> TIA for any suggestions and/or solutions!
>>
>> Gee
>>
>

JoeT,

Thanx for your input regarding my checking "Color Management Settings". I
have posted a screen shot of each of (3) tabs, but due to my weak
understanding of these settings, am reluctant to change anything until learn
more about them.
http://localsbackyard.com/WCM.jpg

In looking thru the available options (in the Color Management Settings), I
haven't found where the color management settings for individual programs are
differentiated.

Also, since Windows Photo Gallery is the only program on my computer that
over saturates images (ie: other Windows-based programs such as "Windows
Mail" and "MS Word" don't over saturate), is finding (and attempting to
change) a windows profile going to alter only WPG?

TIA again!

Gee




"JoeT" wrote:

> John, Those "Fix" options you suggest using would physically alter (edit)
> the characteristics of the image. I believe the OP is asking how to correct
> windows color management so that WPG standard display qualities match those
> of the color management of Photoshop etc.
>
> To the OP, I suggest you check windows color management settings in the
> control panel to be certain it's the same as the color management settings
> you use in those other programs. I'm betting it isn't and windows is using
> some other profile that is causing the difference you're experiencing (i.e.
> windows is using something other than than the ADOBE rgb you're likely using
> in Photoshop etc.). Sorry I can't be more specific than that but without
> being at your machine that's as close as I can get.
>
>
> "

Yes, it is an issue with picture quality in Windows Photo Gallery !

After I installed Vista, pictures started to look odd, started thinking my
digital EOS was wrong, bad focus, settings; all pictures looked blury,
over-saturated, too dark, gamma was all wrong, and it looks almost like 16 or
8 bits colours ... ! really obvious in shadow or dark parts of a picture. I
even started to test my EOS camera to see what the *@# was wrong. My reliefe
when I finally started to suspect WPG and I got good old Thumbs Plus
installed - picture quality back to normal. So, the problem has to be Windows
Photo Gallery. No settings that I can see to fix this. No updates to
download. A shame.

PS: Of course you cannot use the edit picture feature, like some suggested
here. That would only alter picture when the problem is not the picture
itself. Result would be quite random.

> I have been disturbed for some time now with the poor image quality displayed
> in Windows Photo Gallery. Photos appear over-saturated and darker in WPG
> than any other display vehicle (eg: Photoshop, Windows Mail, IExplorer, MS
> Word).
>
> In researching this problem, I found others expressing the same problem WPG,
> but saw no solution. Most responses I saw suggested ignoring WPG and instead
> using a 3rd party program such as Google’s “Picasa�.
>
> What I like about WPG is that it’s a quick and light-weight program for
> viewing photos, and am hoping that someone out there can shed some light on
> what the problem is with WPG, and how do I correct it?
>
> A sample image comparison: left side image in PhotoShop; right side image in
> WPG.
> http://localsbackyard.com/wpg.jpg
>
> TIA for any suggestions and/or solutions!
>
> Gee
>

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 08:34:00 -0700, gee <> wrote:

>JoeT,
>
>Thanx for your input regarding my checking "Color Management Settings". I
>have posted a screen shot of each of (3) tabs, but due to my weak
>understanding of these settings, am reluctant to change anything until learn
>more about them.
>http://localsbackyard.com/WCM.jpg

Color Management can be a very complex topic filled with all kinds of
subjective interpretations that can lead even experienced users down
the garden path. To learn more, good search topics to explore on the
Web include Color Management, Color Space and Color Theory.

For starters a lot of people aren't aware different devices operate in
different color spaces. In simple English that just means your
scanner,printer, video camera, etc., may and very likely will
reproduce hues differently since their color spaces are different,
sometimes markedly so.

One example often seen in video work is how different hues and
luminance levels can appear when looking at the same video on a
computer monitor running in RGB color space and then playing it off a
DVD viewed on your big screen TV since it was converted to NTSC specs,
which clip levels in effect changing the black and white points among
other things. A topic that came up a couple months ago in this
newsgroup and true to form the fanboy crowd got totally wrong and went
into their usual ranting and raving mode.

Better graphic applications like Photoshop allow you the user to
either ignore color profiles all together or substitute a different
one depending on what you're going to do with the image. For example
you may select one color profile to view images on your computer, but
pick a totally different one if you intend to print out a high quality
color image on glossy paper.

Again Photoshop TELLS who (if you set it up correctly) what if
anything is embedding in your graphic files. You have three choices:

1. No color management, any embedded color profile is discarded.
2. Use the embedded color profile.
3. Convert colors to match the current working space.

The idea behind color profiles is to MATCH to X where X is some
desired result. Because of HOW color spaces differ in how they
reproduce color, example; printers use ink often based on 4 colors or
CMYK colors, while computer monitors use a color space based on RGB
values. To print some image on glossy paper and have it match as close
as possible to what you see on your monitor the color profile shifts
hues so the inks used will as close as possible match what you see on
screen when you print it out on paper.

Photo Gallery uses a particular profile based on RGB color space.
Without checking, I think it uses sRGB so images are impacted by the
application of this profile. If you have other higher end applications
installed like Photoshop they may have and like will use another
profile so that explains why images can look very different depending
on what you view them in.

You can see how your system is set up by going to Control Panel and
selecting Color Management. The advanced tab lets you make changes,
Vista's build in help explains it in more detail.

In summary I never would and don't recommend anybody use Photo Gallery
for anything other than a quick and dirty thumbnail viewer and do
actual work on or printing of images from applications better suited
where you have much more control.

Wow!

Thanx (Adam Albright) for that very in-depth description of color management
and how it varies in different mediums and various applications. While I’m
vaguely aware of the fact that my monitor displays in RGB (vs. a commercial
printer using CMYK inks), I’m not a professional photographer, and thus my
needs for a finely-tuned image probably fall far short of a professional’s).

All I’m really after is to get Vista’s WPG to display images on par with
XP’s version of it (Windows Picture and Fax viewer).

I like that fact that WPG is “quick and dirty�, I just wish it wasn’t sooo
dirty.

Finally, if Kruton is correct that this is an issue yet to be resolved by
Microsoft, I would like to know:
1. Has Microsoft acknowledged this as a problem yet?
2. Is progress towards a solution being made (if not, why not)?

Gee





"Adam Albright" wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 08:34:00 -0700, gee <> wrote:
>
> >JoeT,
> >
> >Thanx for your input regarding my checking "Color Management Settings". I
> >have posted a screen shot of each of (3) tabs, but due to my weak
> >understanding of these settings, am reluctant to change anything until learn
> >more about them.
> >http://localsbackyard.com/WCM.jpg
>
> Color Management can be a very complex topic filled with all kinds of
> subjective interpretations that can lead even experienced users down
> the garden path. To learn more, good search topics to explore on the
> Web include Color Management, Color Space and Color Theory.
>
> For starters a lot of people aren't aware different devices operate in
> different color spaces. In simple English that just means your
> scanner,printer, video camera, etc., may and very likely will
> reproduce hues differently since their color spaces are different,
> sometimes markedly so.
>
> One example often seen in video work is how different hues and
> luminance levels can appear when looking at the same video on a
> computer monitor running in RGB color space and then playing it off a
> DVD viewed on your big screen TV since it was converted to NTSC specs,
> which clip levels in effect changing the black and white points among
> other things. A topic that came up a couple months ago in this
> newsgroup and true to form the fanboy crowd got totally wrong and went
> into their usual ranting and raving mode.
>
> Better graphic applications like Photoshop allow you the user to
> either ignore color profiles all together or substitute a different
> one depending on what you're going to do with the image. For example
> you may select one color profile to view images on your computer, but
> pick a totally different one if you intend to print out a high quality
> color image on glossy paper.
>
> Again Photoshop TELLS who (if you set it up correctly) what if
> anything is embedding in your graphic files. You have three choices:
>
> 1. No color management, any embedded color profile is discarded.
> 2. Use the embedded color profile.
> 3. Convert colors to match the current working space.
>
> The idea behind color profiles is to MATCH to X where X is some
> desired result. Because of HOW color spaces differ in how they
> reproduce color, example; printers use ink often based on 4 colors or
> CMYK colors, while computer monitors use a color space based on RGB
> values. To print some image on glossy paper and have it match as close
> as possible to what you see on your monitor the color profile shifts
> hues so the inks used will as close as possible match what you see on
> screen when you print it out on paper.
>
> Photo Gallery uses a particular profile based on RGB color space.
> Without checking, I think it uses sRGB so images are impacted by the
> application of this profile. If you have other higher end applications
> installed like Photoshop they may have and like will use another
> profile so that explains why images can look very different depending
> on what you view them in.
>
> You can see how your system is set up by going to Control Panel and
> selecting Color Management. The advanced tab lets you make changes,
> Vista's build in help explains it in more detail.
>
> In summary I never would and don't recommend anybody use Photo Gallery
> for anything other than a quick and dirty thumbnail viewer and do
> actual work on or printing of images from applications better suited
> where you have much more control.
>
>

Apologies for the double post... Posted wrong location initially...
------
Wow!

Thanx (Adam Albright) for that very in-depth description of color management
and how it varies in different mediums and various applications. While I’m
vaguely aware of the fact that my monitor displays in RGB (vs. a commercial
printer using CMYK inks), I’m not a professional photographer, and thus my
needs for a finely-tuned image probably fall far short of a professional’s).

All I’m really after is to get Vista’s WPG to display images on par with
XP’s version of it (Windows Picture and Fax viewer).

I like that fact that WPG is “quick and dirty�, I just wish it weren’t sooo
dirty.

Finally, if Kruton is correct that this is an issue yet to be resolved by
Microsoft, I would like to know:
1. Has Microsoft acknowledged this as a problem yet?
2. Is progress towards a solution being made (if not, why not)?

Gee














"Kruton" wrote:

>
> Yes, it is an issue with picture quality in Windows Photo Gallery !
>
> After I installed Vista, pictures started to look odd, started thinking my
> digital EOS was wrong, bad focus, settings; all pictures looked blury,
> over-saturated, too dark, gamma was all wrong, and it looks almost like 16 or
> 8 bits colours ... ! really obvious in shadow or dark parts of a picture. I
> even started to test my EOS camera to see what the *@# was wrong. My reliefe
> when I finally started to suspect WPG and I got good old Thumbs Plus
> installed - picture quality back to normal. So, the problem has to be Windows
> Photo Gallery. No settings that I can see to fix this. No updates to
> download. A shame.
>
> PS: Of course you cannot use the edit picture feature, like some suggested
> here. That would only alter picture when the problem is not the picture
> itself. Result would be quite random.
>
> > I have been disturbed for some time now with the poor image quality displayed
> > in Windows Photo Gallery. Photos appear over-saturated and darker in WPG
> > than any other display vehicle (eg: Photoshop, Windows Mail, IExplorer, MS
> > Word).
> >
> > In researching this problem, I found others expressing the same problem WPG,
> > but saw no solution. Most responses I saw suggested ignoring WPG and instead
> > using a 3rd party program such as Google’s “Picasa�.
> >
> > What I like about WPG is that it’s a quick and light-weight program for
> > viewing photos, and am hoping that someone out there can shed some light on
> > what the problem is with WPG, and how do I correct it?
> >
> > A sample image comparison: left side image in PhotoShop; right side image in
> > WPG.
> > http://localsbackyard.com/wpg.jpg
> >
> > TIA for any suggestions and/or solutions!
> >
> > Gee
> >

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:17:01 -0700, gee <> wrote:

>
>Wow!
>
>Thanx (Adam Albright) for that very in-depth description of color management
>and how it varies in different mediums and various applications. While I’m
>vaguely aware of the fact that my monitor displays in RGB (vs. a commercial
>printer using CMYK inks), I’m not a professional photographer, and thus my
>needs for a finely-tuned image probably fall far short of a professional’s).
>
>All I’m really after is to get Vista’s WPG to display images on par with
>XP’s version of it (Windows Picture and Fax viewer).

I've seen a lot of similar posts and a bunch where some people report
Photo Gallery distorts their images badly causing some color cast
ranging from yellow to green to even brown. The fix for that is to
remove any color profile IF your monitor happened to have installed
one. Some do, others don't. It may help your problem too, don't know I
don't see it. If you try it set a restore point first in case it
messes things up.

I'm guessing it involves other things besides any color profile. While
I personally see a difference in how Photoshop and Photo Gallery
present most images the variance on my system at least is so minor you
really need to use an eye dropper and get down to see there are maybe
a few points off on the two as far as RGB values. Maybe something to
do with your particular video card and it's driver also. Really don't
know, just glad it isn't a issue on my system. ;-)


>Finally, if Kruton is correct that this is an issue yet to be resolved by
>Microsoft, I would like to know:
>1. Has Microsoft acknowledged this as a problem yet?
>2. Is progress towards a solution being made (if not, why not)?

Don't know, but I recall XP had a similar issue (on my system anyway)
where if you expanded some images in Windows Explorer then compared it
side by side with the same image viewed in Photoshop or something else
there may be very minor variations. So it could be Windows always
tweaked how they presented images probably by applying some color
profile and not saying they are.

Wow .... yes ... I tried that color management thing just now, and there are
loads of profiles, WCS, device, viewing conditions .... Microsoft, Dell,
Canon, scanner, monitor, gamma monitor, RGB, sRGB, scRGB, you name it, some
as old as 1998. To me this is chinese, and I have no idea where to start ....

As you say, Gee, I only need a "quick and dirty" viewer, but this
16-bit-look (e.g. lips are RED), is nothing but ugly.

Guess I will start remove one profile at the time and see what happens. Only
problem is that my System Restore doesn't work either. Better wait for SP2 ...

"gee" wrote:

> Apologies for the double post... Posted wrong location initially...
> ------
> Wow!
>
> Thanx (Adam Albright) for that very in-depth description of color management
> and how it varies in different mediums and various applications. While I’m
> vaguely aware of the fact that my monitor displays in RGB (vs. a commercial
> printer using CMYK inks), I’m not a professional photographer, and thus my
> needs for a finely-tuned image probably fall far short of a professional’s).
>
> All I’m really after is to get Vista’s WPG to display images on par with
> XP’s version of it (Windows Picture and Fax viewer).
>
> I like that fact that WPG is “quick and dirty�, I just wish it weren’t sooo
> dirty.
>
> Finally, if Kruton is correct that this is an issue yet to be resolved by
> Microsoft, I would like to know:
> 1. Has Microsoft acknowledged this as a problem yet?
> 2. Is progress towards a solution being made (if not, why not)?
>
> Gee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Kruton" wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, it is an issue with picture quality in Windows Photo Gallery !
> >
> > After I installed Vista, pictures started to look odd, started thinking my
> > digital EOS was wrong, bad focus, settings; all pictures looked blury,
> > over-saturated, too dark, gamma was all wrong, and it looks almost like 16 or
> > 8 bits colours ... ! really obvious in shadow or dark parts of a picture. I
> > even started to test my EOS camera to see what the *@# was wrong. My reliefe
> > when I finally started to suspect WPG and I got good old Thumbs Plus
> > installed - picture quality back to normal. So, the problem has to be Windows
> > Photo Gallery. No settings that I can see to fix this. No updates to
> > download. A shame.
> >
> > PS: Of course you cannot use the edit picture feature, like some suggested
> > here. That would only alter picture when the problem is not the picture
> > itself. Result would be quite random.
> >
> > > I have been disturbed for some time now with the poor image quality displayed
> > > in Windows Photo Gallery. Photos appear over-saturated and darker in WPG
> > > than any other display vehicle (eg: Photoshop, Windows Mail, IExplorer, MS
> > > Word).
> > >
> > > In researching this problem, I found others expressing the same problem WPG,
> > > but saw no solution. Most responses I saw suggested ignoring WPG and instead
> > > using a 3rd party program such as Google’s “Picasa�.
> > >
> > > What I like about WPG is that it’s a quick and light-weight program for
> > > viewing photos, and am hoping that someone out there can shed some light on
> > > what the problem is with WPG, and how do I correct it?
> > >
> > > A sample image comparison: left side image in PhotoShop; right side image in
> > > WPG.
> > > http://localsbackyard.com/wpg.jpg
> > >
> > > TIA for any suggestions and/or solutions!
> > >
> > > Gee
> > >