My guess what your disappointment comes from is that you are probably working with Photoshop and using the Adobe RGB Color Setting selection, which is normal for editing and printing. The default colorspace of the internet is sRGB, so when an Adobe RGB image is displayed in that colorspace it looks different'

If you are going to be preparing images for the internet, e-mail, the web, you should go to the Color Setting dialogue of your application and changed the RGB workspace to sRGB. Then when you open an image to prepare a copy to go out in e-mail. into a website, etc.; when you open it if it has an embedded Adobe RGB profile, convert the image to sRGB. Then you can edit and adjust the values to look like you want the image to appear in e-mail or on the web, as then SaveAs in JPEG with the sRGB profile embedded.

Nope, using Photo Impact.
Tried Photo shop elements, no difference.
Every adjustment I can find is set to Srgb
Seems to be better if I do not use the Spyder calibration.
Most obvious is shooting my Golden Retriever pup (with flash)
He is very light, with darker ears, almost all is correct, except the ears which are really saturated.

My error on printer matching.
I printed a 2X2" appeared correct, printed 8.5X11, matched email!

I think the problem lies with Windows sticking its nose into the procedure.

Ken,

Your image will look different when viewing it in a color-managed application like your editing program (I assume Photo Impact is color-managed) as compared to a non-color-managed application like the internet. The more corrections your monitor undergoes for calibration, the bigger the difference will be. There is really no sure-fire way to edit for the internet as most monitors out there are not calibrated and will displays colors and tonality differently. You'll just have to learn to live with that.

(1)I put the photo (or attach) in a email.
(2) On MY MONITOR it is different than the image in the photo program.
This prior to its being launched into the ether regions
Printing results in the same color shift/excess saturation as when it is displayed in the email

BREAKING NEWS!

Calibration by @#%** "Spyder" had killed almost all the red'
Allowed monitor to revert to default and turning off color management in P.I. solved all problems.
Also appears correct in "Elements"

Thanks to all.

Photo Impact functions in sRGB colorspace and does not support color management.

Glad to see you may have figured out why you had this issue. However, now you need to find out what went wrong. Using a non-calibrated monitor and a editing program that is not color-managed is not the solution! Are you sure the Spyder is at fault or did you calibrate to a color temp incompatible with your digital darkroom lighting? If you calibrate to 6500K/D65 (like most people do) and use lighting that is way below 5000K (like most people do) then you have a color mismatch. Your monitor and lighting color temp (and brightness) need to match.

Today there was an announcement of a new book on Photoshop CS4 by Martin Evening a British photographer writer who is really good at both photography and writing. One chapter can be downloaded that specifically addresses "Why You Need Color Management". everyone can download: http://www.focalpress.com/uploadedFiles/Books/Book_Media/Photography/PSCS4-colormanage.pdf

I have written a lot on this subject, but I don't mind recommending a competitor who has done a really good job - so if you have any doubts or question about why color manage read it.

Frans,

So you are still arguing for the Solux/NEC gambit I see. But sadly the tide is running in the opposite direction, as just recently the last holdout finally became D65/gamma 2.2 compliant, Apple Computer.

I am not saying you are wrong, but you are one of few who are comfortable with a D50 environment, and research apparently substantiates that this is why the entire industry has now conformed to a standard default, and is now a uniform D65/gamma 2.2 standard.

I have a close industry friend who was associated for some time with one of the major color management companies and he is like you, he finds D50 comfortable and to his liking. I and a lot of people find it looks too yellowish, warm and flat. But because the majority is more comfortable with D65 does not mean you are wrong for yourself, or my friend is wrong, its just not worth it to swim upstream if there is no "personal individual" benefit.

And one more part of this is that the international manufacturing standard that LCD display makers all conform to for LCD display backlight is 6500K, which is what the CCFL tubes nearly every LCD display back light produces. So to get an LCD to adjust and calibrate to 5000K/D50 you have to throttle the screen itself which then limits the range of available values the screen can reproduce in color images. In other words you are using part of the screen's reproduction color gamut to make the D65 backlight 1500 degrees warmer if adjusted and calibrated to 5000K/D50. This was not the case with CRT's because the light source and the image reproduction were integral to the CRT tube, but with LCD's the light source and the image reproduction are separated, two independent functions.

If you and the few others who find 5000K a comfortable light environment to use and work in, you are free to make that choice, you have a right to make that choice and have that opinion, but the facts of reality won't accommodate, they remain what they are.

David,

So you are still going against sound color science, it appears. Apple choosing D65 doesn't make it right or even the best possible approach. The best possible approach is one where the color temp of the monitor matches that of high-quality print viewing lights and falls within a range of values commonly encountered in the real world. The best quality lighting color temp is 5000K max and most real world conditions are 5500K max. Thus a 5000K setup allows both tight matching of monitor and high-quality lighting and represents real world conditions way better than 6500K.

Because 5000K is way closer to representing real life conditions than 6500K, the myth of 5000K being too warm dissolves quickly when actually working under those conditions for a very short time, expressed in hours if not less. The argument of loosing available levels in an LCD screen if calibrated to anything different from its native color temp holds no water for those monitors that employ internal calibration as opposed to doing that through the computer video card.

Frans,

As I said you are free to choose what suits you, but those that agree with your perspective are getting fewer, and mostly people in pre-press, who are not even photographers. And you have every right to your opinion, but not to determining what the facts are, they are what they are and will not conform to what you believe just because you believe it.