Why my b&w images look darker in a viewer than in Photoshop & how can I fix it?

[Iridium]

After your help with the output format options better for b&w negatives, I need your help again for another issue.

I scanned my b&w negatives in 16bit raw grayscale TIFFs & then inverted & edited the images in Photoshop. I noticed that when viewing these PH edited TIFF images in the Windows viewer, they looked darker (like +1stop) than in Photoshop, as you can see in the following image.

Is this an issue of different profiles between Photoshop & Windows Viewer? The preset profile in Photoshop is "Dot Gain 20%". I just want my photos look the same as I edited them.

 

[koraks]

The preset profile in Photoshop is "Dot Gain 20%".

For best compatibility, work in sRGB space, or at least convert your images to that space before saving them.

Note that the profile you chose specifically refers to dot gain, which is (very simplistically put) images becoming darker in the printing process due to the halftone dots ending up bigger than they should be (=more optical density). So the profile you're working in very crudely compensates for this. Since you're not outputting to a halftone printing process, there's no reason to work with this kind of profile to begin with.

As a working color space, either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB are the most logical spaces, in descending order of universality. sRGB is what pretty much everything on the planet defaults to unless otherwise specified. Adobe RGB is also quite universally supported, however, any display/app that assumes sRGB and/or cannot color manage its output, will interpret anything else than sRGB wrong (wrong colors, too saturated or too muted, too dark, too light etc.)

Note that it's fine to work in whatever space you want, but when you output to something (internet, other apps, printers) you need to keep in mind how the output will interpret the image. This can either be color-managed with the app/device using color profile information embedded in the image to convert the image for correct display/rendering/printing. Or it's an unmanaged environment (assume that internet browsers fall in this category, although not strictly true anymore today) and in that case it helps if the image is already converted to sRGB in the first place so no conversion will have to take place.

TL;DR: just stick to sRGB and call it good.

Happy editing!

 

[Iridium]

@koraks thanx once again. I'll do it & I'll let you know.

 

[250swb]

You will also find Photoshop needs RGB files for some actions and also some add-on software like Silver Efex, so it's best to start with RGB (I use Adobe RGB) and stay with it at all stages. And in the scheme of things not many images on gallery walls or reproduced in books are neutral enough to be Greyscale, they are warmer or cooler tones because this is a characteristic of traditional printing papers, Agfa Portriga for example could be almost dark chocolate in the shadows depending how it was developed. So for reproducing an authentic photo style for web use you can add a tone in Photoshop, but only if the image is RGB.

 

[Iridium]

You will also find Photoshop needs RGB files for some actions and also some add-on software like Silver Efex, so it's best to start with RGB (I use Adobe RGB) and stay with it at all stages. And in the scheme of things not many images on gallery walls or reproduced in books are neutral enough to be Greyscale, they are warmer or cooler tones because this is a characteristic of traditional printing papers, Agfa Portriga for example could be almost dark chocolate in the shadows depending how it was developed. So for reproducing an authentic photo style for web use you can add a tone in Photoshop, but only if the image is RGB.

Thanx. This is exactly what I do from now on.