Embeded Profile Mismatch - PS7

[shafiq]

Dear Forum Members,

Whenever I try to import a picture (in this case a JPEG), Photoshop comes up with a dialog box that states the following:
=====================================
The document XXX.JPG has an embedded color profile that does not match the current RGB working space.

Embedded: sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Working: Adobe RGB (1998)

How do you want to proceed?
x Use the embedded profile (instead of the working space)
x Convert document's color to the working space
x Discard the embedded profile (don't color manage)
=====================================

In addition I have calibrated my monitor and I am sure at the time of calibration I created my own profile.

My objective is to be able to see as true a color as what I would get if I was to print the picture. Any suggestions as to which option I should select would be greatly appreciated?

Thanks in advance
Shafiq

Thx

[Voodoo Bob]

Photoshop is just telling you that the profile embedded in your image is not the one that you selected for use in Photoshop in your color settings. Most digital cameras, especially point & shoots, embed the sRGB profile by default because that is the Internet standard. dSLRs can be set to embed other profiles, but they don't always get recognized when imported into Photoshop anyway (e.g., the 10D), so you will still get the dialogue box you got, and you still need to do the profile conversion. You have obviously set the checkmarks in your color settings to ask you this question when opening the file, which is good because it lets you know where you stand and gives you a full range of choices about what pre-defined working space (color gamut), if any, you wish to work in.

Adobe RGB is the largest color gamut within which you can work on your monitor, so you have chosen the best working space already, especially if you want to print this image after working on it. The larger the color gamut, the better. When you get this dialogue box, simply select the button that will convert the embedded profile to Adobe RGB and work away on the file in Photoshop. That will embed the Adobe RGB profile in the image. When you go to save the final image, the save dialogue box will give you the option to either embed the selected profile or not.

If all you are ever going to do with your images is place them on a Web page or otherwise use them on the Internet only, you may want to stay with the sRGB profile, as that is the profile generally considered to most accurately display your colors across platforms on the Web, which is color range limited. Otherwise, especially if you plan to print your images, Adobe RGB is generally considered to be the better choice.

Photoshop is a "color aware" piece of software, so if you have profiled your monitor and placed the profile in the correct place on your computer (in the Colorsync Profiles folder in the system folder on a Mac; I don't know where on a Windows machine), Photoshop knows to go get it and use it no matter what you have selected for your working space. The monitor profile (if accurate) and the working space, in conjunction with one another, simply give you the best chance of matching your printer's output on screen, which keeps you from having to print multiple test prints, wasting paper and ink, before you get it right in a hardcopy print.

[shafiq]

Voodoo Bob,

Thank you very much for your explanation. I think I have been doing the right think by converting the documents colors to the working space.

Shafiq

[design crusader]

If I may ad to what Bob said... If you have an image that is tagged sRGB, then it is tagged for a limited color space. When the mismatch dialogue box comes up, you should DISCARD the color profile as to not color manage -- and then only after you have opened the image in Photoshop, then you ASSIGN the image to the Adobe RGB color space. Otherwise, if prior to opening, when the mismatch dialogue box comes up, if you CONVERT an sRGB tagged image to the Adobe RGB color space, it will map the colors from the limited gamut of sRGB into the Adobe RGB; however, it does not "expand" the colos into Adobe RGB, or "fill up" in the Adobe RGB space -- it has been color limited. So DISCARD and then ASSIGN. The ideal way would be to shoot in RAW and set your camera to Adobe RGB, and then when you open it up in Photoshop, ASSIGN it the Adobe RGB -- you will see a huge difference in dynamic range.

[shafiq]

design crusader wrote:
If I may ad to what Bob said... If you have an image that is tagged sRGB, then it is tagged for a limited color space. When the mismatch dialogue box comes up, you should DISCARD the color profile as to not color manage -- and then only after you have opened the image in Photoshop, then you ASSIGN the image to the Adobe RGB color space. Otherwise, if prior to opening, when the mismatch dialogue box comes up, if you CONVERT an sRGB tagged image to the Adobe RGB color space, it will map the colors from the limited gamut of sRGB into the Adobe RGB; however, it does not "expand" the colos into Adobe RGB, or "fill up" in the Adobe RGB space -- it has been color limited. So DISCARD and then ASSIGN. The ideal way would be to shoot in RAW and set your camera to Adobe RGB, and then when you open it up in Photoshop, ASSIGN it the Adobe RGB -- you will see a huge difference in dynamic range.

Thanks for your suggestion. I am truly greatful for your very detailed instructions.

Regards
Shafiq

[Voodoo Bob]

You're not adding anything to the image by deleting and then assigning a new working space profile. What's in the image is what's in the image. The difference is how the numbers in the image are handled when the image first appears in Photoshop in the new working space.

If you "convert" the profile to Adobe RGB, you change the numbers in the image to preserve the APPEARANCE of the image as it was in the prior color space when it opens in Photoshop.

If you "assign" a new working space to the image after dumping the old color space, the numbers are NOT changed, which attaches new meaning to the existing numbers in the new color space, which in turn changes the appearance of the image on screen.

Either way, no NEW information is added to the image, but I would think that most photographers would elect to preserve the appearance of the original image, provided it was exposed correctly in the first place.

The key to the working space is that it is just that...the color space within which you will work to edit the image. The benefit of working in a larger color gamut like Adobe RGB is that when you do things like expand the levels histogram to add contrast to the image, especially if you're working in 16-bit mode, the gaps created between the available numbers in the original image are smaller. Consequently, you can do more drastic edits and preserve subtle color transitions without "posterizing" your image.

Even with a camera as far upmarket as the 10D, if you tell the camera to shoot and save in Adobe RGB rather than the default sRGB, you're still going to need to convert to (or assign) Adobe RGB when you open the image in Photoshop, since Photoshop does not understand the Adobe profile in which the 10D saves the images.

[Voodoo Bob]

And actually, if you shoot RAW, you have to convert the image using Canon's File Viewer utility, Adobe's Camera RAW, Capture One, or some other RAW converter to open it in Photoshop at all...at least until Photoshop CS hits the streets.

[MediaMagic]

Voodoo Bob wrote:
Even with a camera as far upmarket as the 10D, if you tell the camera to shoot and save in Adobe RGB rather than the default sRGB, you're still going to need to convert to (or assign) Adobe RGB when you open the image in Photoshop, since Photoshop does not understand the Adobe profile in which the 10D saves the images.

Do you know why this is so? It doesn't make sense to me that Photoshop doesn't understand the Adobe profile of the 10D. Is there a specific reason arising from some necessity? It seems that Adobe would recognize its own colorspace unless Canon's implementation is lacking some information. I'm obviously missing something.

Thanks,
David

[Mike Butcher]

If Photoshop has been set up to open RGB files in a format other than adobeRGB you should assign the adobeRGB profile in photoshop, this changes the settings to always open rgb files in adobeRGB, and warn if it is about to open a file with another profile.
I am working on mac osX, photoshop 7 and my adobeRGB set 10d pics open in the adobeRGB colourspace in Photoshop...
You can preview other "assigned" colour spaces, and all other look weak in comparison to adobeRGB.

[design crusader]

If you "assign" a new working space to the image after dumping the old color space, the numbers are NOT changed, which attaches new meaning to the existing numbers in the new color space, which in turn changes the appearance of the image on screen.


True, when you DISCARD a color profile, and then ASSIGN the new color profile, the appearance of the image will change. But, I think that is the point behind moving from the sRGB color space to the Adobe RGB color space. And from that point forward as long as you continue to embed the Adobe RGB color profile and as long as whoever opens the images continues to use the embedded Adobe RGB color profile, then the image should always appear this way.

My point in my previous post was not to CONVERT when opening the sRGB image, but to discard the sRGB profile and then ASSIGN the Adobe RGB profile once the image has already opened in Photoshop. Also, I had previously suggested in the end of my post, shoot in RAW and set your 10D to Adobe RGB and then when opening in Photoshop ASSIGN Adobe RGB.

[design crusader]

It doesn't make sense to me that Photoshop doesn't understand the Adobe profile of the 10D. Is there a specific reason arising from some necessity? It seems that Adobe would recognize its own colorspace unless Canon's implementation is lacking some information. I'm obviously missing something.

Thanks,
David

It is not that Photoshop doesn't understand. CANON is not actually embedding a color profile, they state that they have created what they call a Color Matrix, which says "[an] image corresponding to Adobe RGB color space is created. This is useful for profile conversion to Adobe RGB or fine-tuning of chroma, because, as mentioned earlier, the color space is much wider then the standard sRGB setting."

On your 10D, you can choose which Color Matrix (Parameters) setting that you prefer to use for your Color management Workflow, and I would advise that if you plan to edit or manipulate the image(s) in Photoshop that you choose Adobe RGB, and then ASSIGN Adobe RGB when opening in PS.

----------

Below is some more info on ASSIGNING vs. CONVERTING

"In some cases you may want to convert a document's colors to a different color profile, tag a document with a different color profile without making color conversions, or remove the profile from a document altogether. For example, you may want to prepare the document for a different output destination, or you may want to correct a policy behavior that you no longer want implemented on the document. The Assign Profile and Convert to Profile commands are used for these purposes. When using the Assign Profile command, you may see a shift in color appearance as color numbers are mapped directly to the new profile space. Convert Profile, however, shifts color numbers before mapping them to the new profile space, in an effort to preserve the original color appearances."

From the Adobe Photoshop Help File

------------

"Files without profiles are simply sets of numbers with no meaning or translators. The computer system doesn‚t know the proper way to preview them or allow conversions to other color spaces. Assigning a profile to a file is like labeling it so that the numbers now take on some meaning. Assigning (sometimes called tagging or embedding), simply provides a translation for the CMS to understand the MEANING of the numbers. This doesn't change the numbers at all; it only provides a definition of what the numbers should look like on a calibrated screen as well as providing a starting point (a source) for conversion to other RGB or CMYK spaces. Files usually have the correct embedded profile or they are untagged. By assigning a profile to a file, the numbers have meaning and that is what's necessary for the CMS to preview and convert the file for specific uses. For example, you may have a file that is intended for a specific printer. Let's assume that the numbers in the file are optimized for producing the correct color and tone to this printer but the file is untagged. You may want to assign a profile to this document so that your client, like you, can properly view the image on their computer system. In CMS savvy applications like Photoshop, the correct profile would automatically be assigned (embedded) in the file, when the user converted the original file into the print space (a file optimized for the specific printer mentioned above). The process of assigning profiles is sometimes necessary when files are either produced or provided with no profile (untagged). "

From CANON EOS Digital Workflow Guide

[Voodoo Bob]

The failure of Photoshop to recognize an image shot with a 10D as Adobe RGB has something to do with the way Canon chose to "tag" such an image in its camera software. I think their tagging was aimed at the EXIF data and does not use a standardized method of profile embedding that Photoshop recognizes.

There is a somwhat obtuse discussion of this at Photo.net in this thread...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Vio

Canon apparently recognizes this problem and is supposed to fix it in later software/firmware versions.

It is my friend, not I, who owns a 10D. I'm still shooting film at the SLR level, waiting for Canon to release the rough equivalent of the 1Ds at a significantly more reasonable price. I'd like to switch to digital for motorsports and stay with scanned film (Velvia 100) for landscapes. There are a lot of rumors about Canon's next new dSLR (in February or March?) being a sort of updated 1D (some like to call it the "3D"). With a 6-8 megapixel CMOS, no more than a 1:3 crop factor, 5 or 6 fps, and the same body as the current 1D/1Ds/1v for under $4000, I'd be VERY tempted to go ahead and break the bank. I'd REALLY like to see a 1Ds for under $2000, but I may not live that long. We shall see. Maybe, if they release a camera like the "3d," they'll update their software to tag the images properly.