Viewing Photos in Internet Explorer Different to Windows Photo Gallery

I have an 8 bit, sRGB, JPEG image (that I converted in Photoshop from a 16
bit, Nikon sRGB, TIFF image, which I scanned using a Nikon 35mm negative
scanner).

When I open it in Internet Explorer 7, it looks exactly like it should.
However, when I open it in Windows Photo Gallery (comes with Windows Vista),
the contrast looks crap. The blacks aren't black anymore.

Anyone know why this is?


PS: Sorry for X-posting, but I don't know what category this falls into.

"Ali" <> wrote in message
news:
> I have an 8 bit, sRGB, JPEG image (that I converted in Photoshop from
> a 16 bit, Nikon sRGB, TIFF image, which I scanned using a Nikon 35mm
> negative scanner).
>
> When I open it in Internet Explorer 7, it looks exactly like it
> should. However, when I open it in Windows Photo Gallery (comes with
> Windows Vista), the contrast looks crap. The blacks aren't black
> anymore.
> Anyone know why this is?


Its because Photo Gallery uses ICC Profiles. Check the monitor profile
being used. It should have appeared like that in graphics software, like
Photoshop, as well, if you were using the correct ICC Profile. What have
you embedded into the files when you were using Photoshop? I use sRGB or
BruceRGB.

If you have been using the correct ICC profile on your scanner, and your
monitor profile is correct, this is how the pictures should appear when you
print them on a printer, which is using accurate profiles.

So, if I had images that had poor contrast, after hacking the ICC profiles
on all devices, I would correct them in Photoshop, using Curves.

ss.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:06:59 +0100, "Ali" <> wrote:

>I have an 8 bit, sRGB, JPEG image (that I converted in Photoshop from a 16
>bit, Nikon sRGB, TIFF image, which I scanned using a Nikon 35mm negative
>scanner).
>
>When I open it in Internet Explorer 7, it looks exactly like it should.
>However, when I open it in Windows Photo Gallery (comes with Windows Vista),
>the contrast looks crap. The blacks aren't black anymore.
>
>Anyone know why this is?

Photo Galley uses some "standard" color profile while Photoshop is
capable of using many different which should give better results. How
much control you have in Photoshop and how easy it easy to change
depends on what version you're using. The last several versions of
Photoshop have more refined color management features.

I wouldn't use Photo Galley to print from. Restrict it to simply
offering a quick way to browse your photos. You already have the best
photo enhancement software on the planet in Photoshop. Do all your
adjustment and PRINTING from it. End of story.

I'll assume you know how to use Photoshop's powerful tools to adjust
levels and curves which is the PROFESSIONAL way to make adjustments.

Hello Adam

I am not looking to print the photo, it is just for viewing on PC screens,
which is the main reason why I am using sRGB. I have already adjusted the
image with curves, levels, hue/saturation, unsharp mask, etc. before
converting the image to JPEG. However, the same final JPEG image appears
very different in Windows Photo Gallery (blacks are not black) to PS and
IE7.


"Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
news...
>
> Photo Galley uses some "standard" color profile while Photoshop is
> capable of using many different which should give better results. How
> much control you have in Photoshop and how easy it easy to change
> depends on what version you're using. The last several versions of
> Photoshop have more refined color management features.
>
> I wouldn't use Photo Galley to print from. Restrict it to simply
> offering a quick way to browse your photos. You already have the best
> photo enhancement software on the planet in Photoshop. Do all your
> adjustment and PRINTING from it. End of story.
>
> I'll assume you know how to use Photoshop's powerful tools to adjust
> levels and curves which is the PROFESSIONAL way to make adjustments.
>

Hello Synapse Syndrome

I must admit, colour spaces blow my mind. Therefore, maybe you are on the
right lines.

I have a Color Spyder, but after calibrating my monitors with it, I wasn't
happy with the results as I could see it wasn't right. Therefore, I went
back to Adobe Gamma.

Could there be a conflict? For example, Photo Gallery is using the old
Color Spyder profile, but PS CS and IE7 are using Adobe Gamma?




"Synapse Syndrome" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Its because Photo Gallery uses ICC Profiles. Check the monitor profile
> being used. It should have appeared like that in graphics software, like
> Photoshop, as well, if you were using the correct ICC Profile. What have
> you embedded into the files when you were using Photoshop? I use sRGB or
> BruceRGB.
>
> If you have been using the correct ICC profile on your scanner, and your
> monitor profile is correct, this is how the pictures should appear when
> you print them on a printer, which is using accurate profiles.
>
> So, if I had images that had poor contrast, after hacking the ICC profiles
> on all devices, I would correct them in Photoshop, using Curves.
>
> ss.
>

"Ali" <> wrote in message
news:
> Hello Adam
>
> I am not looking to print the photo, it is just for viewing on PC
> screens, which is the main reason why I am using sRGB. I have
> already adjusted the image with curves, levels, hue/saturation,
> unsharp mask, etc. before converting the image to JPEG. However, the
> same final JPEG image appears very different in Windows Photo Gallery
> (blacks are not black) to PS and IE7.


There was somebody else with this problem here a couple of days ago, and it
seems to be a common problem with Photo Gallery:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...+Gallery&meta=

Most of the soultions that I have glanced at seem to involve making sRGB
IEC61966-2.1 your monitor profile.

This seems to be a stupid thing to do, just to make things look okay in
Photo Gallery, as it will mess everything else up, as you will not be able
to see the colours properly corrected for your particular monitor.

Unless there is a better solution there, maybe you should forget about Photo
Gallery and use something like Adobe Bridge, Adobe Lightroom or ACDSee Pro
instead.

ss.