Color problems? [work in progress?] [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

View Full Version : Color problems? [work in progress?]

Pages : [1] 2 3

René Damkot

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 19:25

Thought I'd write up a single, rather long post, to keep my postcount within limits, and get some links grouped together ;)

Do you see a difference between Photoshop and another program? Likely this has something to do with (the other program not using) colormagement...

For starters: Check whether the other program is color managed.
AFAIK, Windows explorer is not (before Vista, that is), Windows Picture and Fax Viewer is "half" colormanaged AFAIK (It will honour an image's ICC profile but not the monitor's), ACDSee (non Pro) is not, Breeze Browser is not, iView Media (non pro) is not, iPhoto is not (not sure about newer versions).
A lot of web browser (anything on Windows, all but Safari and IE (when set) on OSX) do not use color management.
FireFox 3 can be set to color manage, and does so better then Safari (http://www.sanneblad.se/johan/?p=93). Highly recommended!

Not sure about your browser? Try it here (http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html) or here (http://www.gballard.net/psd/srgbforwww.html), or more dramatically: Here (http://www.color.org/version4html.html)

If you are using a working color space other then sRGB, the differences can be quite shocking.
So, if you don't know a thing about color management, you might want to stick to sRGB. (Or learn a bit about color management)

First off: there will *allways* be a (slight) difference between a non color managed application and PS, even displaying an sRGB file: That's the difference between your display profile and the sRGB standard.
If you are comparing an image with a different working space then sRGB (AdobeRGB or ProfotoRGB for instance), you'll see a*huge* mismatch.

The only 'solution' is to not use colormangement in PS (set 'Monitor Color' in PS color prefs). That throws color management out the window. Not a good solution IMHO: No way of telling what your image looks like on any other monitor or in print.... For more or less the same reason: *never, ever* use your monitor profile as working space!

What works better, is to get a basic understanding of color management, and set up everything correctly.

To do that, first check your monitor profile: Go to this page (http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html) by Norman Koren. Scroll down, there are a few quick tests to see if your monitor is profiled more or less okay...
If your monitor profile is corrupt, something like this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2208548#post2208548) might happen. (The solution was found at last: click (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2229634#post2229634))
(Another Check here (http://www.gballard.net/psd/colorlooksbad.html))

A few links on monitor calibration can be found in this post (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3069030&postcount=4) by PhotosGuy.

Calibrating dual monitors can be done, depending on calibrator, video card and OS.
For windows look here (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/dual_monitor_calibration.html)

Test images for LCD screens can be found here (http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/).

Easiest way to get your monitor calibrated, is by buying a calibrating device. Lots of them availiable. Search for Eye One, Monaco Optix, Colorvision Spider, Pantone Huey, to name a few. Another (cheaper) option would be to use something like Adobe Gamma: Click (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7_colour/ps7_2.htm)

Another option:
Borrowlenses.com (Out of San Francisco in the US) now rents out the Spyder calibration system for US$20.00 for a 1 week rental.

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/Other_accessories/monitor_calibration

If your monitor is (more or less) calibrated, and you're still "seeing problems", it might be time to dive a bit into Color Mangement.

Start off (after calibrating your monitor) by setting Photoshops color settings something like this (click image to enlarge):
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/PSCS2Color_tmb.jpg (http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/PSCS2Color.jpg)

The 'RGB Working space' is a case of personal preference. (Also take a look at the "sRGB or AdobeRGB" links at the bottom of this post!)
As long as the color management policies are set like this, most problems will be avoided. (Or at least you'll get notified that there is a potential problem)

If you use DPP, be sure to set the monitor profile. (the program is too stupid to figure it out for itself ;))
(Edit: Latest version (windows) seems to have the option to set it so the 'system profile' is used)
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/DPP-color_tmb.jpg (http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/DPP%20color.jpg)

Again, work color space is personal preference, but it would make most sense to use the same working space as in PS...

When converting a file, make sure to embed the profile. In DPP (or whatever Raw converter of choice might be): tick the checkbox:
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/DPP-profile_tmb.jpg
(http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/DPP%20profile.jpg)

If you shoot jpg, the profile will allready be in the file.

Now, if your default working space is not sRGB, you'll get lousy display in a non color managed application (like most web browsers) if you don't convert to sRGB before saving an image for web.

Unfortunately, "Save for web" does not do this all by itself... (Edit: CS3 and CS4 offer the option)
I find it easiest to make a keyboard shortcut for it for single images: (I use an action when I'm doing a lot)
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/PSCS2-keyboard-tmb.jpg (http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/PSCS2%20keyboard%20shortcuts.jpg)

Alternatively, go Edit > Convert to profile (PSCS2) or Image > Mode > Convert to profile (PSCS). Don't know for sure where it is on other versions, but probabely one of these two...

When converting from, say AdobeRGB to sRGB, the colors should not change (by much). Only colors that are out of sRGB Gamut (like very saturated greens) change a bit, depending on rendering intent used. (see link on the bottom of this page)

Note that there is also an option "Assign Profile". Do not use that. The *only* time you assign a profile, is when the document doesn't have one embedded. And if the document doesn't have an embedded profile, someone (likely you) made an error... (That's why the warning boxes in the PS CM settings are ticked)

Next, make sure WYSIWYG in the 'Save for web' window, or just use "Save as" and keep the EXIF in the image (Which I prefer)
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/PSCS2-save-for-web_tmb.jpg (http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/PSCS2%20save%20for%20web.jpg)

Note this is the setting I use, because I use Safari, which is color managed. If you want to see what a non color managed browser looks like, you need to select 'Uncompensated Color'. This will show you what the jpg will look like in a non color managed app. The colors in the document are not affected however (they are the same as the original when viewed in a color managed app)... Logical annit.

Regardless of the method used for saving an image, IMHO a profile should always be embedded, if only for those of us using Safari for browsing, or for later, correct viewing in a color managed application..

Some general CM links: (hey, at least now I can find them back :lol:)

The ultimate resource: Bruce Fraser (http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/40.html)
The most recommended book about Color Management. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fexec%2Fobid os%2Ftg%2Fdetail%2F-%2F0321267222%3Ftag2%3Dheadphonerevi-20&tag=headphonerevi-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) By Bruce Fraser.
Canon article about Color Management (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/technical/colourmanagement.do), part two (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/technical/colourmanagement2.do).
Reviews of equipment (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews.html) like Monitor & printer profilers.
'Favourite CM links (Color space conversion and rendering intents:[/B]

What Rendering Intent to use? (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12641.html)
Color space conversion & Rendering intent (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm)
A graphic explanation of Rendering intent (http://www.newsandtech.com/issues/2004/03-04/pt/03-04_rendering.htm)
Another link about Rendering Intent. (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/color-management-rendering-intent.html)
Out of Gamut: Realizing Good Intentions with Rendering Intents (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12641-1.html)
Color Management Myths (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_21-25): Sometimes Perceptual isn't perceptual

[U]Color spaces and working space:

ICC site (http://www.color.org/profile.html)
sRGB or Adobe RGB (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm). Why sRGB might be a better choice sometimes.
Another link about sRGB vs. Adobe (http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998), with some 'real life' examples.
sRGB or Adobe RGB (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html). Same story, also about 8 vs. 16 bit.
What about ProPhoto RGB? (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/prophoto-rgb.html)
A bit more on ProPhotoRGB, to help understanding some problems. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml)
Why ProPhotoRGB might not be best. (http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/85/January+2005+-+ProPhoto+or+ConPhoto)
A few more spaces (http://www.hutchcolor.com/profiles.html) by HutchColor
Info on working spaces, (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html) including graphic representations.
UPDIG guidlines (http://www.updig.org/guidelines/calibration.php)
Interactive graphic representations of color spaces. (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/gamutmodel.html)

Misc. programs & links

A pdf (http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200701_rodneycm.pdf) about color management in Lightroom.

A bit more on Color management and web browsers (http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3)
A few images to test the monitor. (http://www.monitorsetup.com/)
A DAM comparison (http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/flow-catalog-compare.html)
What Monitor Calibrator? (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm)
Shootsmarter on Monitor Calibration (http://www.shootsmarter.com/monitorcentral.html) (Also a few further links, which require logging in)
Another site on Monitor Calibration. (http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/)
DryCreek Photo on Monitor Calibrating and Profiling (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration.htm)
A thread explaining the difference between calibrating and profiling of a monitor (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22675). (Yes I've very probabely used the word 'calibrating' a few times where I should have said 'profiling'.)

Printing?

Post at the end of this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3246321#post3246321), concerning soft proofing.

Softproofing (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/soft-proofing.shtml) as explained on LL.
Very nice first part of a video tutorial (http://luminous-landscape.com/videos/camera-print.shtml) on LL
Softproofing (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/15310.html) as explained by Bruce Fraser
And another explanation. (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7_colour/ps7_7.htm)

How to use ICC Printer Profiles (http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/27/Using+ICC+Output+Profiles)
Using Printer Profiles with Digital Labs (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm)

On printing and profiles with Canon printers (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29530)
Downloadable profiles for higher end Canon printers (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=PrinterProfileAct)
Softproofing and Printing with an Epson 3800 (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/printworkflow.html).
CS3, OSX and CM printing (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps10_print/ps10_print_1.htm).
Some test images. (http://www.normankoren.com/printer_calibration.html)
PDF by Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/color_managed_raw_workflow.pdf)about a Color managed workflow.
A whole load of PDFs (http://www.xrite.com/support_doc.aspx?Line=32&SupportID=3000) on the XRite site, explaining Workflows - Using Profiles with Third-Party Applications.
The color management chain (http://www.gballard.net/nca.html) by Gballard
HP and OSX (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&lang=en&cc=us&dlc=en&product=305383&docname=c00236210)
HP and Windows (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?product=305383&lang=en&cc=ca&lc=en&dlc=en&docname=c00063336&printable=yes&#)

If anyone wants to add: Please do...

tim

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 19:44

Rene, great idea. I find it very difficult to read though, your later pictures are wide so to read each line I have to scroll the screen back and forth. I'd suggest making the images smaller, or linking to them instead, perhaps with thumbnails.

I can proof read it for you once I can see it properly, if you like.

PacAce

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 20:06

Good stuff, Rene. I'll sticky this thread and also include a link to it in the FAQ thread. :)

René Damkot

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 20:26

Done, never thought about thumbs :oops: Better?
Looks like my screen is bigger then yours Tim :lol:
If you want to proof read: Yes please!

tim

28th of March 2007 (Wed), 02:45

All I have is a little 19" LCD :p

That all looks good, though personally for people who don't know anything about color I recommend sRgb, just because it's generally more compatible. I might also mention something about the difference between embedded and converting. I'd probably also link directly to Bruce's book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fexec%2Fobid os%2Ftg%2Fdetail%2F-%2F0321267222%3Ftag2%3Dheadphonerevi-20&tag=headphonerevi-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325).

René Damkot

28th of March 2007 (Wed), 06:28

Done.

In2Photos

28th of March 2007 (Wed), 07:51

Good stuff Rene. I am slowly making my way through Fraser's book but I will definitely use this as a resource until I understand this stuff completely.

cosworth

29th of March 2007 (Thu), 14:45

I have a couple examples of why you need to convert to profile after you've calibrated your monitor.

Since I'm a PC user my browser IE7 (or so I thought) didn't do much with colour management.

You may or may not see colour differences here. But as a Winblows user I do.

http://www.jasonhollister.com/tech/pprgb.jpg
http://www.jasonhollister.com/tech/srgb.jpg
http://www.jasonhollister.com/tech/srgb_noprofile.jpg

René Damkot

30th of March 2007 (Fri), 05:27

The last image is ProPhotoRGB without a profile I'd think...
Nice example.

tim

30th of March 2007 (Fri), 07:44

The last image is ProPhotoRGB without a profile I'd think...
Nice example.

Agreed, doesn't make a lot of sense to me otherwise.

cosworth

30th of March 2007 (Fri), 17:18

I double checked, it was saved with sRGB, not ProPhoto. No ICC profile included.

René Damkot

31st of March 2007 (Sat), 08:15

On my color managed browser (Safari) the first two (with profile) look identical. The last one is obviously off.
In Firefox, the first two look different from Safari, but the Prophoto RGB image looks the same as the one without a profile.
Like in the first attachment (where I turned CM off on pprgb.jpg)

StealthLude

2nd of April 2007 (Mon), 17:05

thanks for making this a sticky, its always nice to have something to use and go back to for refrence.

TMR Design

7th of April 2007 (Sat), 08:34

Thank you René,

Color managment is a confusing and ongoing problem for many people. Thanks for creating this thread. Many will benefit from it.

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 13:38

I stopped trying to fix my problem after a lot of tries. This was about four months ago, and I don't remember what exactly I did, so I am hoping you guys can guide me to what settings to use, and if they look ok on your end.

BTW, I'm using a MacBook with an uncalibrated lcd.

Here are a few screen caps:

Photoshop on the left, Camino (mac web browser) on the right.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/comparison.jpg

These are the settings I used to save the pic for the web
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/8bit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/assignprofile.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/converttoprofile.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/saveoptions.jpg

Hope you guys can help. Thanks.

In2Photos

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 14:06

René Damkot

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 14:21

Okay, AFAICS, your working space is sRGB.
Then you are *assigning* your monitor profile?
That gives you an image that will look different from what it should, by the amount your display profile differs from sRGB. (In the top of the image window PS displays "RGB/8*" telling you the profile differs from your working space)
You then convert it to your working space: sRGB.
Then you open it in a *non color managed* browser (Camino).
That gives you a view of the file without any color management: the embedded profile is disregarded, and the image is sent to the monitor "as is". You get to see the difference between your monitor and sRGB *again*.

Only step I'm missing is where the "Camera RGB Profile" is coming from...

All in all: It's a mess.

- Don't "assign" a profile. Ever.
- A non colormanaged app will allways look different from a color managed one. Live with it. Or discard CM alltogether. (see the first post)

All I can say is: Calibrate your display. Use Adobe Gamma if nothing else.

Re-read my first post, and try to understand it.

If you *really* want the image to look the same in PS as in Camino, set PS color settings to 'Monitor Colors'. This will throw color management out of the window, so there is no saying how your images will look on another monitor. That's a choice you'll have to make...

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 14:22

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that I changed the settings (I probably did back then), those are the settings that are set. I just wanted to show them.

What profile should I assign instead of the LCD profile?

edit: Ok, just read Rene's post. I didn't assign the profile, I just opened the assign profile window to try and show you guys what I had going on. After I finished getting the screen cap, I canceled the window.

I tried Safari, and the picture matches almost exactly as Photoshop. Now I guess I have to ask how they look on other monitors.

Here is the pic alone:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/sunrisetest.jpg

Compared to the pic I posted before of the combined screen caps, does this pic look the Photoshop one or Camino one.

In2Photos

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 14:29

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that I changed the settings (I probably did back then), those are the settings that are set. I just wanted to show them.

What profile should I assign instead of the LCD profile?
None. A Profile should already be assigned either in camera (jpeg) or in your RAW convertor (RAW). You should only convert the profile if you are using something other than sRGB when you want to save an image for web viewing. At that time you would Convert to Profile sRGB.

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 14:45

None. A Profile should already be assigned either in camera (jpeg) or in your RAW convertor (RAW). You should only convert the profile if you are using something other than sRGB when you want to save an image for web viewing. At that time you would Convert to Profile sRGB.

(My last post was edited.)

Oh, ok. So how would I know what profile is assigned? Or is there no other possibility other than jpeg or raw unless assigned in post processing?

In2Photos

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 14:53

(My last post was edited.)

Oh, ok. So how would I know what profile is assigned? Or is there no other possibility other than jpeg or raw unless assigned in post processing?
When you select Convert to Profile it tells you what profile you are currently in. In your screen shots above it shows Color LCD so somewhere you are either converting or assigning this profile. It should not have this profile.

What do you shoot, RAW or Jpeg? How do you open files? Do you use a program to ingest your files (from CF card to computer)?

In2Photos

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 14:54

Compared to the pic I posted before of the combined screen caps, does this pic look the Photoshop one or Camino one.
It looks like the Camino one and the profile is probably something other than sRGB. I use Opanda to view EXIF info and it says unassigned which means that there is no profile or it is something other than sRGB. Opanda doesn't read anything other than sRGB.

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:12

When you select Convert to Profile it tells you what profile you are currently in. In your screen shots above it shows Color LCD so somewhere you are either converting or assigning this profile. It should not have this profile.

What do you shoot, RAW or Jpeg? How do you open files? Do you use a program to ingest your files (from CF card to computer)?

I shoot Jpeg, then connect my camera to my MacBook. iPhoto then opens and I import the photos. I then open them up in Photoshop.

In2Photos

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:20

I shoot Jpeg, then connect my camera to my MacBook. iPhoto then opens and I import the photos. I then open them up in Photoshop.
I am not familiar with iPhoto but I do not see anything here which might cause your profile to be something other than sRGB or aRGB. Yet somewhere in your workflow Color LCD is being "attached" to your photo.

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:24

I am not familiar with iPhoto but I do not see anything here which might cause your profile to be something other than sRGB or aRGB. Yet somewhere in your workflow Color LCD is being "attached" to your photo.

Could I have some how set up PhotoShop to assign Color LCD automatically?

In2Photos

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:27

Could I have some how set up PhotoShop to assign Color LCD automatically?
Possibly, not sure. Take a look at Rene's settings:

http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/PSCS2Color.jpg

Do your settings resemble his? Where it says Profile Mismatches you should check Ask when Opening. Set your working space to sRGB. Open a file and see if you get a mismatch.

René Damkot

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:34

It looks like the Camino one and the profile is probably something other than sRGB.

Over here it looks like the PS one. Not surprising, since the embedded profile is 'Camera RGB' which it should not be, and I use Safari for browsing (color managed)

(The screenshot has 'Color LCD' as embedded profile by the way. Also not as it should be, but logical, since you made a screenshot on a Mac, which has the monitor profile embedded)

Could I have some how set up PhotoShop to assign Color LCD automatically?

First of: You need to get a few things straight:

- A jpg image from a digital camera (or coming out of a RAW converter) allready has an imbedded profile. (unless you forgot to tick the box 'ICC profile' in the converter)

Therefore, there is no need whatsoever to assign a profile.

Before posting on the web convert to sRGB.

Do not use your monitor profile as a working space anywhere. Ever.

Please, reread post #1, and try to understand it.
It's all there, really.

If there are any questions, ask them, but read post #1. There is a reason I wrote it...

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:37

I did get a profile mismatch.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/mismatch.jpg

René Damkot

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:41

Where does the 'Camera RGB profile' come from (what camera or RAW processor?)

Try converting it to sRGB. Then at least you have an sRGB workflow, so the image will look closer (not identical!) in a non colormanaged app...

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:42

How does this look to you guys?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/cl_jay/test123.jpg

Jaythan

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:44

René Damkot

26th of April 2007 (Thu), 15:48

How does this look to you guys?

To me (on Safari) it looks identical to the first and the screenshot of PS.
To the rest of the world (using a non color managed browser), it will probabely look a lot closer to what was intended, since the Embedded color profile is: “sRGB” ;)

Edit: On the Rebel set to sRGB:
AFAIK the embedded profile should then be sRGB, not Camera RGB (never even heard of it)...
Only thing I can think of, is that iPhoto somehow screws up the profile during import.

You could try copying a file to your HDD without using iPhoto, see if you still get the profile mismatch.

Anyone else got a thought?

Off for now, back tomorrow...

embdude

27th of April 2007 (Fri), 02:54

Thanks Ren'e!

This is an ambitious project and I have not fully grasped it myself yet. I hope to be able to get a good handle on it now!

barkley

21st of May 2007 (Mon), 06:02

I've been trying to follow this thread as well I can, and I think my problem is slightly different.

I'm using a Mac Powerbook and a Canon SD200. I import my pictures via iPhoto 6 and I've noticed that when they appear in iPhoto the color is hugely over-saturated (see photo below, left). When I export them and open the folder in which the jpeg was saved, and then highlight it, the preview image that appears next to it is not over-saturated... but when I open the file in Preview, it is. So it seems that some color profile is being applied to the full-size image but not the thumbnail.

If I open the file in PixelNhance, the over-saturation disappears, and simply opening the file and hitting save without editing it is enough to remove the over-saturation and restore the picture to normal (see photo below, right). Perhaps PixelNhance strips the file of an embedded color profile (note there's no color profile listed for the photo below)? Or is iPhoto not recognizing the profile provided by the camera? Has anyone else had this problem? I get the impression that perhaps a picture is having a color profile added to it twice because a profile in a picture is not being labelled...

I've noticed that the colors are correct only when the profile is stripped from the picture (by PixelNhance) or when I manage to import the picture from the camera via another program and attach a color profile of Color LCD (which is what my monitor shows, of course).

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

René Damkot

21st of May 2007 (Mon), 11:29

Downloaded PixelNhance and gave it a try.
It isn't color managed, and what is worse, it indeed strips the profile. Very bad practice indeed.
Color Management just went out the window :(

I'd say the colors are 'correct' with the higher saturation. After stripping the profile (or assigning the wrong one) they are no longer correct. They might be more pleasing, but that could also be achieved by setting exposure and WB correctly...

Not sure if iPhoto is color managed nowadays. Older versions weren't. Preview is color managed.

Assigning your monitor color profile to an image is not good. Your monitor profile is just that, it's not a working space, nor should be used as one. For one thing, it will change over time.

From the screenshot I'd say you are using AdobeRGB. If you are going to use programs without color management, I'd suggest sRGB.
That way you'll at least be closer...

René Damkot

22nd of May 2007 (Tue), 06:30

A bit on softproofing:
(would have included it in the original post, but got a 'too many images' error, and adding it somewhere in the middle seemed a bit illogical)

What I'd do is this:

Open the image.
In the 'History' palette click the left icon in the bottom ("create new document from current state"). This gives you a duplicate called 'Open' to work on.

Softproof using the paper/printer profile.

Make an adjustment layer to correct the image (if needed), like Bruce Fraser described it here (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/15310.html): "The Proof Setup simulation is "live" so you can work inside it. One technique I find effective is to use adjustment layers to optimize the image for a particular print process while working with the soft proof simulation turned on. I then save the adjustment layers in a layer set that's named descriptively for that print process. This allows me to make different optimizations for different print conditions, and turn them on and off as needed."

For instance, the next image, I could have used a hue/saturation adjustment layer, to get the blue/magenta tones in the upper left corner within Gamut.
Simply adjust the softproof, untill it looks as close to the original as possible and as good as can be. Use whatever adjustment layers you like: Selective color, curves, hue/sat.

Main point is, you don't want to permanentely alter the file, that's why you use adjustment layers. (Who knows, maybe you want to print it at a later date on a printer with a larger Gamut, or whatever)

Some examples:
Original top, soft proof bottom (Ilford paper profile, relative colorimetric. I didn't check 'paper white' and 'black ink' so something is left of the image ;))
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/original_vs_softproof.jpg

Main problems are the upper left erea, and the skin tones loosing 'punch'.
Next the softproof after correction: While not identical to the original, a lot closer...
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/softproof_after_correction.jpg

And the Gamut warning before and after correction:
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/Gamut_warning.jpg

Once you get it close enough, you can flatten the image, and then use Edit > Convert to profile (Edit > Mode > Convert to profile in CS), using the same settings you used in the soft proof. Save this file as a copy (filename_print_profilename.jpg or so).

Hope this helps...

barkley

22nd of May 2007 (Tue), 18:49

Thanks Rene. The effort is very much appreciated. I suppose you're right, except I just uploaded some more pictures via iPhoto and noticed that, if I simply upload and then export to the desktop without editing the picture, it saves the picture without a color profile. So the picture is displayed with the gaudy over-saturation when it appears in iPhoto after importing from my camera, but the colors are back to normal when exported and there is no listed profile (but the color space is RGB). Same happens when I import through CameraWindow. If I import through Image Capture, however, it embeds a color profile called 'Camera RGB Profile' (or one of my choice). Thing is, when I upload THAT into iPhoto, it appears with the gaudy colors again. So iPhoto doesn't appear to save color profiles, and yet it applies one to pictures unnecessarily when they already have one? I'm afraid I'm having trouble getting my head around this one as it seems so inconsistent. White balance is on automatic at the moment, and the pictures look great on the camera screen as well as when opened outside of iPhoto, so I don't think it's a malfunction in the camera. The problem with PixelNhance must just be a coincidence. Strange...

At any rate, thanks for you help. If anyone has any further thoughts or insight, I'd appreciate it. At the moment I think I'll just try to work outside of iPhoto and PixelNhance as the former applies a skewed color profile and the latter strips it entirely.

René Damkot

23rd of May 2007 (Wed), 06:49

By the sound of it, iPhoto uses an embedded profile to display the image, but doesn't export with one. Strange: One would expect some kind of consistency... Maybe it is settable in Prefs?
I don't have the program, so I can't test it... Same goes for 'Camera Window'

As I said before: The 'gaudy over saturation' is probabely what the image really should look like ;) Fix that through proper white balance and exposure, and in camera settings for saturation.
Alternatively, you could forget about 'accurate colors', and just go for 'pleasing colors' by assigning the wrong profile. Sometimes it is an option. (Allthough not one I'd recommend in most cases)

The camera screen is utterly unreliable for judging exposure and colors. For one thing, it isn't calibrated, and mostly is way too bright in dark surroundings, and almost invisible in bright sunlight. Learn how to use the histogram instead. (assuming the camera offers one)

korigirl

26th of May 2007 (Sat), 22:03

Okay, I think I need some help here. I've read the thread but being a complete newbie to color management, I'm not sure if I've got it all figured it out.

Most of my confusions stems from the fact that I've been having this problem for only a few weeks which leads me to believe something has changed.

I use a MacBook Pro with OSX. I do not have a fancy calibrator, although after all of the reading I've been doing, its apparent I need to invest in one.

Here's the problem, I shot my pictures, put them on the computer, open and edit in PS, Save the image and the output was much less saturated than what I viewed in PS. Now, when I view it, its either in ACDSEE v1.6.9 or Firefox. Both of those don't color manage, right? So, if they dont color manage, does this mean I'm viewing on my monitor profile? Well, if thats the case, then I would want my monitor profile to be as close as to what I'm looking at in PS, right? Well, I did some more reading and read that most photographers should use 2.2 gamma even for a Mac so I changed that and now the images are coming out darker after they are saved.

Now, if I go into PS and go to proof setup and look at the Macintosh RGB, Windows RGB and Monitor RGB, they all have completely different colors. I can edit my picture under the Mac and Win and make sure it looks okay for those but my problem is that I never had to do this before. It would be nice if the Monitor and Mac ones were the same. Can I only achieve that with a fancy calibrator? The calibrator under System Preferences definitely leaves something to be desired IMO.

Also, I use sRGB as my working space. I was also shooting in that so I wasn't doing any converting. Here's a picture of the differences:

http://www.korigirl.com/Picture%201.jpg

René Damkot

27th of May 2007 (Sun), 09:05

Most of my confusions stems from the fact that I've been having this problem for only a few weeks which leads me to believe something has changed.
Check that first ;)

I use a MacBook Pro with OSX. I do not have a fancy calibrator, although after all of the reading I've been doing, its apparent I need to invest in one.
It does help. Although IMO a laptop screen is not ideal for color critical work. (Not much to do with this issue though)

Here's the problem, I shot my pictures, put them on the computer, open and edit in PS, Save the image and the output was much less saturated than what I viewed in PS. Now, when I view it, its either in ACDSEE v1.6.9 or Firefox. Both of those don't color manage, right? So, if they dont color manage, does this mean I'm viewing on my monitor profile?
They don't color manage, so all data is sent to the display 'as is'..

Colors will be (slightly) off, no matter what you do. (Except when you don't color manage in PS; not an option IMHO)

Well, if thats the case, then I would want my monitor profile to be as close as to what I'm looking at in PS, right?
You want your monitor profile to be accurate.
That *probabely* means it will be close to sRGB, so there should not be a *huge* difference. There will be a difference however.

Well, I did some more reading and read that most photographers should use 2.2 gamma even for a Mac so I changed that and now the images are coming out darker after they are saved.
Gamma should be 2.2.
Images will appear darker in a non colormanaged program then with Gamma 1.8, but should be closer to PS then when using Gamma 1.8 I think.

Now, if I go into PS and go to proof setup and look at the Macintosh RGB, Windows RGB and Monitor RGB, they all have completely different colors.
Doesn't sound right.
I opened your screenshot, and proofed it in those three spaces. Looks like this:
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/color/ProofWinMacMonitor.jpg

(Your screenshot shows sRGB by the way. Did you convert to sRGB? If not: either your monitor profile, or PS color settings are wrong (check them, including "tick boxes"): In OSX a screenshot has your monitor profile by default)

I can edit my picture under the Mac and Win and make sure it looks okay for those but my problem is that I never had to do this before. It would be nice if the Monitor and Mac ones were the same. Can I only achieve that with a fancy calibrator? The calibrator under System Preferences definitely leaves something to be desired IMO.

You won't get that with a calibrator either. You need to understand what those proofs do:

Mac proof is Gamma 1.8. The way it would look in a non colormanaged app on an 'old' mac (running Gamma 1.8 );
Windows proof is assuming sRGB (so an sRGB file shouldn't change; an AdobeRGB will look 'flat');
Monitor profile is a non color managed application on your system. (assumes monitor profile: No conversion of colors)

Note that in my screenshot, the non proofed image looks the same as the windows proof. The Mac proof shows the difference between Gamma 2.2 and 1.8, the Monitor proof shows the difference between my monitor profile and sRGB...

Also, I use sRGB as my working space. I was also shooting in that so I wasn't doing any converting. Here's a picture of the differences:

You shot jpg?
If you shot RAW it doesn't matter what the camera was set to: Color profile is set in the RAW converter.
(And from your screenshot: I'm guessing the file is AdobeRGB)

mantra

2nd of June 2007 (Sat), 09:54

sorry a noice question
i read your great tutorial!
by the way , why don't use s-rgb iec6 (that's a standard )instead of adobe rgb 88 ?

René Damkot

2nd of June 2007 (Sat), 14:25

I suppose you mean sRGB IEC61966 vs. AdobeRGB (1998)?
There are a few links about that exact question in the first post (near the end, in the buch of links) ;)
In short: AdobeRGB offers a larger Gamut.

totalbeginner

7th of June 2007 (Thu), 18:01

I am trying really hard to get my head around colour space but there are some things that I just don't understand.

Am I right so far....?

Colour space should be assigned in camera (if shooting JPEG) or during export from a RAW converter (if shooting in RAW)?

What does ICC stand for, and what does this have to do with sRGB?

What is the difference between an assigned profile and an imbedded profile?

How can you calibrate your monitor, using Adobe Gamma for example, if it's not displaying correctly in the first place? Surely the whites, greys and blacks will not look correct?

René Damkot

7th of June 2007 (Thu), 18:27

ICC = 'International Color Consortium (http://www.color.org/profile.html)'.

AFAIK "Assigning" is mostly used when you are talking about "Assigning a profile" in Photoshop (As opposed to "Converting to profile"). Apart from that: Yes, the profile is set in the Camera or RAW converter.

Embedded profile is the profile that is embedded into the image. (So color managed software knows how to display it correct)
If there is no embedded profile, and you know what it should be, you can assign one in PS ;)
It's just a different choice of words I'd think, but it can cause misunderstandings.

I've used AdobeGamma on my CRT, and found it a pain. Ten times calibrating got ten different results. All pretty close, but visible differences. Squinting did help a bit. as did removing my contacts :lol:

If you are *profiling* your monitor (calibration requires hardware), you are basically telling the system what looks neutral. (by setting the sliders so 'the center box fades into the patterned frame')
This info is stored in the monitor profile. (let's not get to technical here ;)) The system then "knows" what it has to put in to get neutral colors out, and 'gray' will be displayed as 'gray'.

Mark Marnell

23rd of July 2007 (Mon), 17:47

Thanks for all this great info..It looks like a life time of learning.. I use a canon 5d so should iselect rgb to shoot in as opposed to the default srgb..i shoot in raw all the time then straight to light room and then to epson 3800

René Damkot

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 06:49

If you shoot Raw, the color space is set in the Raw converter. In camera settings don't matter (only affects the preview and histogram)...

In2Photos

24th of July 2007 (Tue), 09:00

If you shoot Raw, the color space is set in the Raw converter. In camera settings don't matter (only affects the preview and histogram)...
And filename. Adobe RGB images will use _MG_2492.CR2 while sRGB images use IMG_2492.CR2.

Sageg

27th of July 2007 (Fri), 08:51

I'm with you for everything except the ICC profile. How do I embed it & where do I find it? (CS3).

Thanks for the great explanation!

René Damkot

27th of July 2007 (Fri), 13:57

If you save or 'save as' in PS, there is a tick box "Embed Color Profile"

Sageg

30th of July 2007 (Mon), 09:14

Thanks! I feel stupid--I thought the ICC profile was different than the colour space.

richard lynch

5th of August 2007 (Sun), 20:04

Lots of people over-complicate color management. There is a lot of misinformation about it, and I've stood my ground since it first reared its ugly head. sRGB is essentially what you see on screen. It is what most devices will expect. It will rarely lead to surprises.

As the first post says, it may be a good choice for beginners.

I think it may also be a good choice for professionals.

Learn to make the most of your images and optimize corrections. Calibrate your monitor. Work in sRGB and be happy.

You can definitely get other color spaces to work...I have seen very few good images where it makes much difference.

René Damkot

6th of August 2007 (Mon), 06:29

Deanphoto

14th of August 2007 (Tue), 18:04

In2Photos

15th of August 2007 (Wed), 07:58

Hey colour guru's!

I'm having an awful time trying to get my head around all this, there really is too much info! I'm wondering if somebody can help me out?

Take a look at the screenshots below....

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5940/snapshot20070814233349uy6.jpg
On the left is Safari, and the image how it looks in photoshop and my other apps I use on my mac. On the right is firefox, urgh!!

Below is a screenshot of my colour profile in CS3 (I haven't touched this).

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/6167/snapshot20070814233758if3.jpg

And below is the image, set as my wallpaper (as it looks in CS3) also showing my iMacs calibration...

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/378/snapshot20070814234628uo3.jpg

Which is correct? Obviously the one on the left looks better, but is that right?
While your settings are set to sRGB (in PS) the image in question is likely not. Can you post the image itself? I bet it is Adobe RGB. Or simply check for yourself by choosing Edit > Convert to Profile (what does it say the current profile is?). Click cancel.

Safari is a color managed application so it reads the profile and displays the "correct" output. Firefox is not so it assumes the image is sRGB and displays the image "incorrectly".

Also, if you calibrated your screen did you create a profile, maybe iMAC calibrated? If so why are you not using that and using the sRGB? Have you read this thread?

Deanphoto

15th of August 2007 (Wed), 11:06

While your settings are set to sRGB (in PS) the image in question is likely not. Can you post the image itself? I bet it is Adobe RGB. Or simply check for yourself by choosing Edit > Convert to Profile (what does it say the current profile is?). Click cancel.

Safari is a color managed application so it reads the profile and displays the "correct" output. Firefox is not so it assumes the image is sRGB and displays the image "incorrectly".

Also, if you calibrated your screen did you create a profile, maybe iMAC calibrated? If so why are you not using that and using the sRGB? Have you read this thread?

I relaise that Safari is colour managed and Firefox is not, however presumed that all would be OK as I thought the image was saved as sRGB. The profile iMac calibrated is standard for the iMacs, I usually use this but for this explanation I changed it so all colour setting were the same.

I'll check the edit>convert to profile when I get home and let you know how I get on. The image is here...

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9631/yellab5vn2.jpg

In2Photos

15th of August 2007 (Wed), 11:12

I relaise that Safari is colour managed and Firefox is not, however presumed that all would be OK as I thought the image was saved as sRGB. The profile iMac calibrated is standard for the iMacs, I usually use this but for this explanation I changed it so all colour setting were the same.

I'll check the edit>convert to profile when I get home and let you know how I get on. The image is here...

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9631/yellab5vn2.jpg
The image looks just like your FIREFOX screen shot above in IE. Opanda IEXIF shows "uncalibrated" for the color space. This means that the color space is either a) NOT embedded, or b) NOT sRGB. Convert the image to sRGB using Edit > Convert to Profile should solve your web color problems.

Deanphoto

15th of August 2007 (Wed), 11:40

The image looks just like your FIREFOX screen shot above in IE. Opanda IEXIF shows "uncalibrated" for the color space. This means that the color space is either a) NOT embedded, or b) NOT sRGB. Convert the image to sRGB using Edit > Convert to Profile should solve your web color problems.

You my firend, are an absolute star!!

I'll have a bash when I get home, cheers!

Robf

20th of August 2007 (Mon), 10:58

check you arent assigning a profile, convert then save instead...if it looks ok before you save after the conversion it should look ok in firefox.

Athena

20th of August 2007 (Mon), 12:44

I've read so much on this subject and while updating my ATI video driver did make my problem better, it is still not completely resolved. Or perhaps I am expecting too much?

My Acer Aspire laptop monitor has been calibrated with a Spyder2Express and the resulting profile is the default profile for the monitor.

My PS color settings are:
198951

The embedded colorspace for this document (http://lifeprintsphotography.com/POTN/Hopper_9319.jpg)is sRGB.

But this is what it looks like in PS compared to what it looks like with an unmanaged app. Is this difference acceptable (it is often worse in documents containing more red)? Should I get over this and always edit in PS to my eye and then create a seperate document with different settings for images I want displayed on the web (but then won't those look wrong to mac users on Safari?). Help?!?

198953

Robf

20th of August 2007 (Mon), 17:23

in an unmanaged app, its displaying using your monitor profile...in PS its displaying it using the sRGB profile. The difference your seeing is just that, the difference between your monitor space and sRGB...the two will always have some difference.

A word of warning, working in monitor RGB is not a good idea...but for a test, convert your sRGB to monitor RGB then save that out and look again, the two should now be indentical. Dont however use this to give to someone else, because they will have a different monitor RGB and consequently it will look different again on their monitor. This is why device independent profiles such as Adobe RGB or sRGB (or the other ones in that bracket in PS's colour prefs) are used, so that CM savvy apps have a common ground to look to.

Again, working in monitor RGB is really a no-no...its only when you fully understand why you shouldn't that you will then know under what limited circumstances you can ;)

René Damkot

24th of August 2007 (Fri), 05:41

You my firend, are an absolute star!!

I'll have a bash when I get home, cheers!
The image you posted is in ProPhotoRGB.

I've read so much on this subject and while updating my ATI video driver did make my problem better, it is still not completely resolved. Or perhaps I am expecting too much?

My Acer Aspire laptop monitor has been calibrated with a Spyder2Express and the resulting profile is the default profile for the monitor.

My PS color settings are:

The embedded colorspace for this document (http://lifeprintsphotography.com/POTN/Hopper_9319.jpg)is sRGB.

But this is what it looks like in PS compared to what it looks like with an unmanaged app. Is this difference acceptable (it is often worse in documents containing more red)? Should I get over this and always edit in PS to my eye and then create a seperate document with different settings for images I want displayed on the web (but then won't those look wrong to mac users on Safari?). Help?!?

I DL-ed the image: It shows sRGB as attached profile in PS, but it displays closer to the screenshot in your windows viewer...
IMO the difference you get is quite big. Maybe your display(profile) is so-so...

A few posts back (post #40 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3274234&postcount=40)) I posted four screenhots of an image and the soft proofs for "Windows", "Mac" Monitor". Give that a try, and report back.

Also, have a look in the first post, and check your monitor profile.
How does the image look in both apps on a different (calibrated) monitor?

Athena

24th of August 2007 (Fri), 07:49

Thank you for your response Rene. :)

Here is the comparison between Monitor RGB on the left and Windows RGB on the right proofs in PS. As I understand it, this shows the difference my monitor profile is causing.

http://lifeprintsphotography.com/POTN/MonitorVsWindowsRGB.jpg

This monitor is calibrated with a Spyder2Express. Should I assume from these results that this profile is not acceptible? And if so, what is my next step?

http://lifeprintsphotography.com/POTN/ColorManagement.jpg

Thank you SO much for your help! :D

René Damkot

24th of August 2007 (Fri), 08:09

Not to clear on your screenshots: Did you convert to MonitorRGB profile? Or assign? Or softproof? (since filenames are diffrent, and I can't see the entire top text in the PS window (I mean behind the "66.7%": It should say something like "(RGB/8/Windows)" when softproofing)

Provided you are softproofing:

Like I said in post #40: "Windows proof is assuming sRGB (so an sRGB file shouldn't change; an AdobeRGB will look 'flat');
Monitor profile is a non color managed application on your system. (assumes monitor profile: No conversion of colors)

Note that in my screenshot, the non proofed image looks the same as the windows proof. The Mac proof shows the difference between Gamma 2.2 and 1.8, the Monitor proof shows the difference between my monitor profile and sRGB..."

Both bold statements seem to be what you are seeing...
If you have access to a different monitor, hook it up to your laptop, calibrate, and see what happens then... Most laptop monitors aren't too great, so it might be that the monitor is the limiting factor here. Might also be your monitor profile isn't correct. Some quick tests for that here (http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html).

Maybe someone else has a brilliant insight?

Athena

24th of August 2007 (Fri), 08:45

I did not convert or assign; they are soft proofs. On my screen the non proofed image looks the same as windows RGB proof. The monitor proof, which I would hope would also be the same, is not. Therein lies my frustration... as well as my suspicion that the spyder profile is faulty.

Alas - I am overseas and will be till mid October. I don't have another monitor here.

I'll check out the tests you linked and report back. Thanks. :D

Gamut

30th of August 2007 (Thu), 09:18

Just ordered an EYE1. Posting to stay in the thread.

Alvy

7th of September 2007 (Fri), 08:31

So I'd like to continue this thread, and perhaps extend it a bit, to talk about the next step on: so an sRGB image will never quite look the same in a colour-managed application such as Photoshop or Safari, as one that has no colour management (IE, FireFox).

In most instances, the difference between two images is almost negligable - but what happens when the difference is relatively importing, if not essential?

I have been working on a low key image for someone yesterday, and came across the problem. Below is an image of the image in Firefox, and in Photoshop:

http://www.haushinka.org/media/Picture_2.png

The image in photoshop accurately displays the colour levels on the image, with the lips being red, whereas the firefox version is faded out, to almost a shade of slight pink. The difference between the two is slight, but essential for the image - all warmth is removed in the browser version.

As someone who inevitably does a lot of work that ultimately ends up being displayed on the web, as portfolio images on sites, catalog images, and so on, I'm interested in knowing - what's the best process to at least approximate the look and vibrancy of a photo?

Having had a look at the above image in various browsers and Operating Systems, the look of it is roughly the same, in terms of fadedness. Would simply over compensating during post-production help perhaps?

I understand that it'll never be technically possible to match the image in colour and non-colour managed apps, but to approximate as much as possible, how do people do it?

Robf

7th of September 2007 (Fri), 10:14

i think your almost definately seeing the difference between your monitor space and srgb....you can test this by keeping the one to the right there, and assigning monitorRGB to the one in PS and it should match the one on the right.

the options to cure this aren't really cures...

1) you can assign sRGB and save the file with the profile...assuming a calibrated monitor then that will look the same in colour managed applications or close on monitors calibrated around 2.2 gamma. Or if it is viewed in a non CM aware application, it might look ok as sRGB is the default space of windows machines that havent been calibrated

2) you can assign your monitor profile, but then this will only work on other people's machines if they are using a CM aware application to view and have a calibrated monitor, in the other possibilities they will see shift as it will use their monitor profile (be it sRGB by default or their custom one) in applications that arent CM aware.

because of the complications of the latter, i tend to use the former and convert to sRGB, and save...you cant account for those that dont have calibrated monitors, so i think aiming for the wider population using sRGB is best.

Robf

7th of September 2007 (Fri), 10:16

if you calibrate around a 2.2 gamma space then you will see less shift...a lot of mac users use 1.8 gamma, but this really dates back to the old days and these days there is more payoff for using a 2.2...certainly most LCD's use sRGB space for their gamut and this is 2.2 based.

René Damkot

8th of September 2007 (Sat), 12:24

The image in photoshop accurately displays the colour levels on the image, with the lips being red, whereas the firefox version is faded out, to almost a shade of slight pink. The difference between the two is slight, but essential for the image - all warmth is removed in the browser version.

Are you sure the file is in sRGB?
If so, nothing you can do about it, except turn off CM in PS. (use setting 'Monitor Color'). Remember however, that that will only work for *your* monitor: Results might be even bigger then they are now on someone elses system!

As someone who inevitably does a lot of work that ultimately ends up being displayed on the web, as portfolio images on sites, catalog images, and so on, I'm interested in knowing - what's the best process to at least approximate the look and vibrancy of a photo?

Use sRGB, save with ICC profile: People who care will then at least be able to DL the image and watch in a CM application. (Or might use a color managed browser like Safari)

Having had a look at the above image in various browsers and Operating Systems, the look of it is roughly the same, in terms of fadedness. Would simply over compensating during post-production help perhaps?

Depends entirely on the displays of the people viewing.
You could give it a try, but would never know for sure. (And would screw up the image for people like me: Using Safari, and a calibrated monitor)

I understand that it'll never be technically possible to match the image in colour and non-colour managed apps, but to approximate as much as possible, how do people do it?

Use a gray scale at the site (like for instance on DPReview does)
Along with something like this text: "Dpreview use calibrated monitors at the PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally also A, B and C."

i think your almost definately seeing the difference between your monitor space and srgb....you can test this by keeping the one to the right there, and assigning monitorRGB to the one in PS and it should match the one on the right.
Or soft proof for monitor RGB, Windows RGB and Mac RGB....

Monitor RGB looks identical to the image in FireFox on your Mac, Windows RGB should look about like PC users view it, MacRGB as Mac users using Gamma 1.8 view it.

the options to cure this aren't really cures...

1) you can assign sRGB and save the file with the profile...assuming a calibrated monitor then that will look the same in colour managed applications or close on monitors calibrated around 2.2 gamma. Or if it is viewed in a non CM aware application, it might look ok as sRGB is the default space of windows machines that havent been calibrated

Why assign sRGB when the image is sRGB allready?
Why assign anyhow? The *only* time you use assign, is when an image has no ICC profile, and you know what it should have been. (IE.: When someone messed up)
In all other cases you use Convert.

2) you can assign your monitor profile, but then this will only work on other people's machines if they are using a CM aware application to view and have a calibrated monitor, in the other possibilities they will see shift as it will use their monitor profile (be it sRGB by default or their custom one) in applications that arent CM aware.
No. By assigning you aren't changing pixel values, just changing the profile.
In a non CM application, the view won't change, in a CM application, you just threw CM out of the window.
Converting also isn't very likely to work, since you would only be introducing another unknown variable (your monitor profile) to the equation.
Use sRGB. It's a standard.

because of the complications of the latter, i tend to use the former and convert to sRGB, and save...you cant account for those that dont have calibrated monitors, so i think aiming for the wider population using sRGB is best.

Agree with that, and second the 'Use Gamma 2.2' recommendation.

Robf

8th of September 2007 (Sat), 17:32

sorry yes, the middle two points you raised should be convert, not assign...hope that makes a bit more sense :)

dpastern

1st of October 2007 (Mon), 05:52

You won't get that with a calibrator either. You need to understand what those proofs do:

Mac proof is Gamma 1.8. The way it would look in a non colormanaged app on an 'old' mac (running Gamma 1.8 );
Windows proof is assuming sRGB (so an sRGB file shouldn't change; an AdobeRGB will look 'flat');
Monitor profile is a non color managed application on your system. (assumes monitor profile: No conversion of colors)

Note that in my screenshot, the non proofed image looks the same as the windows proof. The Mac proof shows the difference between Gamma 2.2 and 1.8, the Monitor proof shows the difference between my monitor profile and sRGB...

OK, René - just checked this on my system and I just want to make sure that I'm understanding it all...

1. Mac RGB looks flatter and perhaps not as bright as either of the other 2 choices.
2. Some subtle difference between Windows RGB and Monitor choice, with monitor being a bit darker, and colour saturation slightly different. The differences aren't really huge though.

Photoshop was set to use CMYK as the default (certainly not by me). My question is, should I leave it at that, or change it to custom (and select the pantone huey profile)? Or, should I set it to monitor? Or something else...

One other thing, the image in question was taken in camera as Adobe RGB, and processed in DPP as Adobe RGB and outputted to a 16 bit tiff file with an embedded profile. So - if I understand things correctly, by default it will show in the Adobe RGB workspace in Photoshop. I didn't really notice any really huge difference between the default CMYK and Windows choices under the proof setup menu. Does this sound right?

I don't have a printer at home, and get all my images printed by a local lab (when I can afford it of course), so how important is it to still setup the proof setup in my case?

Dave

Athena

1st of October 2007 (Mon), 09:43

Just wanted to update here: My color problems are FIXED!! Yahoo!!

It all came down to a bad monitor profile. A bad Spyder2express created monitor profile to be precise.
Needless to say, I now do not recommend this product. grrr.
But I am quite pleased to have color issues resolved. :D

Thank you to everyone who took the time to offer advice, look at image samples and help me.
Best of luck to the rest of you!

~A

René Damkot

1st of October 2007 (Mon), 10:56

OK, René - just checked this on my system and I just want to make sure that I'm understanding it all...

1. Mac RGB looks flatter and perhaps not as bright as either of the other 2 choices.

That's because the (old fashioned, not to be used IMO) Mac Gamma of 1.8 instead of 2.2
I'ld think it would appear a bit brighter though. (see post #40)

2. Some subtle difference between Windows RGB and Monitor choice, with monitor being a bit darker, and colour saturation slightly different. The differences aren't really huge though.

Sounds okay: Your monitor is fairly close to sRGB.

Photoshop was set to use CMYK as the default (certainly not by me). My question is, should I leave it at that, or change it to custom (and select the pantone huey profile)? Or, should I set it to monitor? Or something else...

I assume you are talking about the proof setup?
CMYK is default. Doesn't matter what it's set to, since most of the time you aren't proofing anyhow ;)

If you proof however, you're proofing for a (device specific) profile. For instance that of your printer, or that of your lab. I very rarely proof for screen: I use sRGB for web, and IMO if somebody is using a screen that's *that* far from sRGB that my images look significantly different, that's their problem, not mine...

One other thing, the image in question was taken in camera as Adobe RGB, and processed in DPP as Adobe RGB and outputted to a 16 bit tiff file with an embedded profile. So - if I understand things correctly, by default it will show in the Adobe RGB workspace in Photoshop.

Depends on the color settings: If you have the Color Management Policies set to 'Preserve Embedded Profiles", then yes. (Camera setting doesn't matter when you shoot Raw BTW: It will only affect the preview & histogram. The Raw converter will determine what colorspace the tiff is in)

I find that the field in the lower left of your PS image window (displays file size by default) is best set to display the documents color profile, (click the arrow to the right of it) as can be seen in the screenshots I posted in post #36 and #40.

You can also see in the top of the PS image window what's used: It says something like "Filename.tif @ 25% (RGB, 16)" if the embedded profile is the PS default. If there is a "*" after the 16, the document has a diferent profile then the default PS working space, if there is a "#" you messed up, because there is no profile attached....

I didn't really notice any really huge difference between the default CMYK and Windows choices under the proof setup menu. Does this sound right?
That would depend very much on the image. Mostly, if I proof for CMYK, I find some of the more saturated colors change very drastic. Some images OTOH don't change at all.

I don't have a printer at home, and get all my images printed by a local lab (when I can afford it of course), so how important is it to still setup the proof setup in my case?

Dave

If you can get a profile of the printer they use, you can proof for that.

Just wanted to update here: My color problems are FIXED!! Yahoo!!

It all came down to a bad monitor profile. A bad Spyder2express created monitor profile to be precise.
Needless to say, I now do not recommend this product. grrr.
But I am quite pleased to have color issues resolved. :D

Thank you to everyone who took the time to offer advice, look at image samples and help me.
Best of luck to the rest of you!

~A
Good to hear it's fixed :D

In2Photos

1st of October 2007 (Mon), 11:11

Athena

1st of October 2007 (Mon), 12:12

Sorry you had troubles with your Spyder Athena. I have used one for over a year now and profiled 3 seperate monitors with great success.

I should note that this was on a laptop. I am going to take the Sypder back to Thailand with me and give it a chance on my desktop. I'll report back. :)

dpastern

2nd of October 2007 (Tue), 05:45

Thanks René - will it sounds good then! I will check the settings for document information and change it from file size to working space, and also check to make sure that Photoshop is indeed displaying in Adobe RGB (that's what I told it to do in preferences so it better be!!!).

Cheers!!!

Dave

Bollan

20th of October 2007 (Sat), 19:44

Hi René and thanks for all your hard work.

I have a calibrated monitor (Eye-One2) and i just need confirmation of
my settings please.

As the picture of your PS settings is missing (see quote) if i understand it correct my setting in PS CS2/3 should be the following

Custom
Working Spaces
RGB: sRGB (this is where im unsure, should this be my monitor profile?)
CMYK: Us Web Coated (Swop)v2
Gray: Gray Gamma 2.2
Spot: Dot Gain 20%
Color Management Policies
RGB - CMYK - GRAY : All set to Preserve Embedded Profiles
The 3 "boxes" : All unchecked
Conversion Options
Engine : Adobe (ACE)
Intent: Relative Colorimetric
The 2 "boxes": Checked

Start off (after calibrating your monitor) by setting Photoshops color settings something like this (click image to enlarge):
http://www.moonglade.net/%7Erene/POTN/color/PSCS2Color_tmb.jpg (http://www.moonglade.net/%7Erene/POTN/color/PSCS2Color.jpg)

Thanks for taking your time René!!!

René Damkot

21st of October 2007 (Sun), 11:42

Sorry, server seems to be down atm...

RGB: Do not set your monitor profile. Set a working space. (sRGB, AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB for instance)
The policies 'boxes': Check at least the last two.
Intent: Either relative colorimetric or perceptual.

psyber_0ptix

26th of October 2007 (Fri), 20:51

When browsing through my monitor color settings, it has an sRGB mode. When this is selected, it locks my contrast (at 70) and brightness (at 100). Is this normal? i cannot afford a calibrating device at this time and am trying to ensure that my pictures wont look nice only on my screen. But with these two settings locked, i cannot adjust for gamma :\

René Damkot

30th of October 2007 (Tue), 01:54

I don't know your monitor, so I don't know ;) Cheapest "calibration" option is to use Adobe Gamma or something similair (like the OSX 'built in' application)...

batcher

1st of November 2007 (Thu), 12:26

Just so I do understand, after all the work in PS and then the save for the web in srgb, I'll still need to tweek things to get the best viewing representation of the printed version? Thanks

René Damkot

3rd of November 2007 (Sat), 10:11

Not sure I understand the question....

Say you are working in AdobeRGB. Then you'ld want to save an sRGB copy for web, and use the (AdobeRGB) original for printing...

You can save a copy of that one after soft proofing (and correcting) for the printers profile. The original file should stay untouched IMO.

::Lisa::

6th of November 2007 (Tue), 07:26

Hi,

I have a Q, this has probably already been asked anyway. I'll start by explaining. I have been using Windows up until now and I do a lot of web design and graphic design etc. On my windows monitors there was no difference in colour saturation from save as and save for web so I used save for web for graphics and such. I'm now on a Mac and I can see the difference, now it's bugging me.

I've been through your first post, calibrated my display on the Mac, everything looks nice in that respect. I shoot JPEG and my cameras are set as sRGB already so when I check my profiles they're OK for that, although save for web still showing a lot of saturation loss. It's the same no matter if I convert the profiles first from sRGB to aRGB or vice versa. The save for web feature still looks poor compared after. Now I don't want to use it no more but I do like the way it optimises so wondering if there is a workaround for making it ok again (not that it wasn't anyway, because I never noticed the loss of colours on the Windows machine).

Thanks. Have attached a pic open in photoshop and then the save for web feature. You can especially see the orange of the flames and plastic barrier their up against is gone, and the pink of the coat and green of the other coat etc too.

image is here > http://www.lisacleverley.com/temp/colorproblems.jpg

Athena

6th of November 2007 (Tue), 19:18

Lisa - within the Save for Web screen, be sure that you have selected the "Use Document Color Profile" option. You can find it by clicking the wee arrow button near the Save button.

218995

::Lisa::

7th of November 2007 (Wed), 13:03

Lisa - within the Save for Web screen, be sure that you have selected the "Use Document Color Profile" option. You can find it by clicking the wee arrow button near the Save button.

218995
Ohhhhh awesome!!!!!!! Thanks ever so much. I never noticed that little arrow there before :lol::oops: Does it save that as a preference now I used it or do I have to keep checking it like that everytime?

Thanks ever so much though. Can't believe it's been awful colour like that for years now and didn't realise :( d'oh!

René Damkot

8th of November 2007 (Thu), 00:54

Ohhhhh awesome!!!!!!! Thanks ever so much. I never noticed that little arrow there before :lol::oops:

Then you didn't read post #1 thoroughly ;)

or do I have to keep checking it like that everytime?

The setting in there is the same one you used the last time you saved for web AFAIK.

::Lisa::

10th of November 2007 (Sat), 08:30

Then you didn't read post #1 thoroughly ;)

The setting in there is the same one you used the last time you saved for web AFAIK.
Yes you're right René. I think a matter of being overwhelmed with it all tbh lol. Thanks for the awesome tutorial. It's nice to get an understanding of everything that ensures your pictures are saved in the colour they were created, and especially knowing more from how the program (Photoshop) works itself, thanks again (for everything) Since you've helped me in the past too with getting watermarks in the right place.

sceee1991

19th of November 2007 (Mon), 21:57

This is a great post. I wish I had read it sooner!

Scunner

13th of December 2007 (Thu), 20:54

René,

Thank you for putting this together, and to the other posters who shared their experiences with colour management.

I had attempted to calibrate my monitor and printer before, and quite frankly, did a pi$$ poor job of it. I needed your insights and G. Ballard's repetitive-drill-it-into-my-thick-skull approach for it to sink in.

The difference that Safari makes when viewing images with profiles embedded on a colour-managed browser are incredible. Cosworth's examples in the first page really opened my eyes when I installed Safari on Vista.

René Damkot

14th of December 2007 (Fri), 02:05

You're welcome! Glad it helped :D

krusnof

4th of January 2008 (Fri), 09:49

Just a quick question regarding calibration with tools like Spyder, Huey etc. How should the surrounding lighting be like? Should it be completely dark or just as you would normally work in? However, the latter scenario changes a lot of sometimes might include reflections etc. So should I shut off all light??

Thanks

René Damkot

4th of January 2008 (Fri), 15:20

I´ve read suggestions to do it in pitch dark, but I do it in normal room lightening.
I use the Monaco Optix XRpro.

krusnof

4th of January 2008 (Fri), 15:40

Tried earlier in daylight with lamps on as well (not directly on the screen of course) and here later at night with ALL lights out. I did not see any difference what so ever after the calibration and when switching between the two profiles in display settings. So I guess it does matter... Thanks

Preben S

5th of January 2008 (Sat), 01:08

I think I have seen somewhere, that this (too much light in surroundings) is mostly a problem, when calibrating CRT displays.

Is it an LCD you have calibrated?

krusnof

6th of January 2008 (Sun), 14:07

I think I have seen somewhere, that this (too much light in surroundings) is mostly a problem, when calibrating CRT displays.

Is it an LCD you have calibrated?

Yeah it was a Macbook Pro, but only use LCDs...

René Damkot

6th of January 2008 (Sun), 17:09

Some tips on calibrating a Macbook: Click (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8741-9027#wait)

Photos By Katie

15th of January 2008 (Tue), 02:04

Ok. I took 3 hours to read and re-read this post and I am still a little confused. I got the save for web little arrow thing. WHoo hoo. When I try to save my color settings to what you have, it tells me I am unsynchronized.

I am calibrated to my pront shop at 5200 1.8 80 I used Eye one to calibrate.

I donot have a program like Safari, Is this the one you would recommend? My pictures open up in Window picture adn fax viewer. I want the edited pics in cs2 to look the same on the computer. I edit in my studio and the pics need to look the same so the clients know exactly what they are getting. I am guessing the whole problem will be fixed if I get a Safari program. I also have zoombrowser and lightroom right now.

My settings are
North American General Purpose 2
U.S. Web Coater (SWOP) v2
Dot Gain 20%
Dot Gain 20%

Preserve Embedded
Preserve Embedded
Preserve Embedded

As soon as I try to check off any of these boxes it tells me I am unsyncronized

Assign profile I have teh middle one checked off sRGBIEC61966-2.1

Convert:'
Source space: sRGBIEC61966-2.1
Destination Space: ""

I hate to even post this after all the trouble you have gone through and all the questions that you have answered over and over again but this is really starting to drive me crazy.

Thank you for your help, I appreciate it so much

Kathleen

René Damkot

15th of January 2008 (Tue), 05:47

The unsynchronized means that you have other Adobe programs (Bridge for instance) that are set differently.
From the PS help (hard to find): "When you specify Creative Suite color settings using Adobe Bridge, color settings are automatically synchronized, ensuring that colors look the same in all color-managed Adobe Creative Suite 3 components. For instructions on setting up color management using Bridge, search for “synchronize color settings” in your component’s Help."

Safari is a web browser for Mac, it recently got available for Windows, but I don't have any experience with that one.
I'd use any viewer that is color managed for showing off images. Not sure what that'll be on windows, but you could use bridge or Lightroom (which can also make a slideshow), or maybe give iView a try. I'm sure there are a bunch of others.

On the display calibration: I use D65 setting: 6500K, gamma 2.2, display about 100Cd/m^2.

The setting you use (if I understand correctly) is 5200K, gamma 1.8? That would explain a difference, since that's way different then 'default' (sRGB) displays.
I'd recommend using gamma 2.2 and probabely a higher color temperature as well. D50 (5000K, gamma 1.8) is used in prepress, not that much in photography.

Photos By Katie

16th of January 2008 (Wed), 00:56

Um yeah. still not working. I am thinking I need a program that is color managed to open my files in. Any suggestions?

René Damkot

16th of January 2008 (Wed), 06:28

Um yeah. still not working. I am thinking I need a program that is color managed to open my files in. Any suggestions?

What's not working?

Like I said:

I'd use any viewer that is color managed for showing off images. Not sure what that'll be on windows, but you could use bridge or Lightroom (which can also make a slideshow), or maybe give iView a try. I'm sure there are a bunch of others.

I'm not sure if the LR slideshow will be displayed right, but if so, I'd think that would be the most 'slick' option.

iView would probably work, and is a great DAM application as well.
PhotoMechanic would probably work as well, and is a great program.
Bridge would work, and you already own it ;)

OL9245

17th of January 2008 (Thu), 20:02

Apologizes to René and Photos_by_Katie to intrude in the middle of your discussion.
I thought here is the most appropriate place for providing this information, rather than setting a new thread.

I find this during a deep ;) and thrilling ;) excursion inside my hard drive. it is a comprehensive, step-by-step , explanation of
how to configure Photoshop to color-manage an Epson printer.

There is nothing in this document that careful readers of René's post will not already know. I was however more than happy to find the A-to-Z screen captures to complete the settings.

ftp://ftp.epson.com.au/pub/epson/TechTips/RGB%20CS2%20Windows%20Workflow.pdf

EDIT: in case the link hangs, google "the rgb workflow guide" (including the double quotes)

Preben S

18th of January 2008 (Fri), 23:10

Um yeah. still not working. I am thinking I need a program that is color managed to open my files in. Any suggestions?

Katie,

If you are using Windows XP only:
Microsofts Fax viewer will be color managed if you install Microsoft's Color Control Panel Applet. Be careful that only one display profile is installed for your monitor. You can also download Microsoft's raw file viewer in the same download section.

http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/colorcontrol.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/default.aspx

Preben

red hot sheep

20th of January 2008 (Sun), 05:10

OK, sorry if this problem has already been covered.

Firstly, I use the Spyder2Express to calibrate my LCD.

From reading the first post, I understand some software is colour managed and others not. So Photoshop, Bridge and Windows Picture Viewer (in Vista which I use) are colour managed programs. Firefox and 'general' Windows use (such as setting an image as a background) are not. This is fine and I can understand this.

However, I hoped by using a Spyder2Express that differences between colour managed programs and non-managed programs would be minimal. In reality, I'm getting a big difference, especially in blue/green. I don't know how I can make a screenshot to show this, but there is a very noticable change.

Is there any way to profile non managed applications to look more like my managed ones?

Also, my brother uses the same Spyder2Express and calibrated his monitor in exactly the same way. He does not have this problem and all his non managed programs look virtually identical to his managed ones.

I understand that Safari is colour managed and now available for Windows. So this would solve my internet problems, but my main computer (desktop images) would still look totally wrong.

Thanks!

EDIT: I guess I'm dissapointed at the huge shift in colour between managed and non managed programs, and confused why Vista colour manages its picture viewer but not desktop?

René Damkot

20th of January 2008 (Sun), 11:16

However, I hoped by using a Spyder2Express that differences between colour managed programs and non-managed programs would be minimal. In reality, I'm getting a big difference, especially in blue/green. I don't know how I can make a screenshot to show this, but there is a very noticable change.

The difference you see is the difference between the monitor profile and the sRGB profile.
Whether the difference is biggor or smaller then before calibrating depends on what monitor profile was used before (likely sRGB or something close), and how close your monitor actually is to sRGB...

Is there any way to profile non managed applications to look more like my managed ones?
Get a monitor closer to sRGB ;)
So, in reality: no.

Also, my brother uses the same Spyder2Express and calibrated his monitor in exactly the same way. He does not have this problem and all his non managed programs look virtually identical to his managed ones.
He probably has a different monitor, closer to sRGB.

I understand that Safari is colour managed and now available for Windows. So this would solve my internet problems, but my main computer (desktop images) would still look totally wrong.

If the difference is so huge it is bothersome even where it doesn't (IMO) matter, I'd consider a better monitor (assuming that's the cause)

EDIT: I guess I'm dissapointed at the huge shift in colour between managed and non managed programs, and confused why Vista colour manages its picture viewer but not desktop?

No experience whatsoever with Vista, but I'd guess that color managing everything was not considered important. (I wouldn't). Then again, I'd implement it nevertheless ;)

red hot sheep

20th of January 2008 (Sun), 11:56

gcogger

20th of January 2008 (Sun), 16:54

Thanks a lot René.

I've actually installed Safari for Windows now so my internet browsing is now colour managed. So really the only thing that's not is my desktop background - I can live with that! (And can't afford a new monitor!)

Thanks again.

Just a thought - are your images in sRGB? If they're in something like AdobeRGB, there will always be a big difference between colour managed and non colour managed applications.

OL9245

21st of January 2008 (Mon), 02:55

I hope it's okay to post my color problem here in this thread. If not, tell me and I start another one.

When I right-click and copy an image in POTN to edit, then create a new document in PS and paste, the image does not look the same. the Web is always more red (10 points more in RGB, that is not small!) than PS. (Note: My screen is calibrated with Spyder2)

Here is a screen capture of my screen after I have set side by side the Safari original image, and how it looks after copying in Photoshop.
The problem is consistent with firefox or safari. Where does this come from, and how can I get consistency when I capture images in POTN to edit?

Left: seen in Safari. Right: same image copied in Safari, and pasted in Photoshop.
237553

René Damkot

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 08:58

When I right-click and copy an image in POTN to edit, then create a new document in PS and paste, the image does not look the same. the Web is always more red (10 points more in RGB, that is not small!) than PS. (Note: My screen is calibrated with Spyder2)

Not sure, since it looks like you use windows.

In this case the image looks different, so I'd guess that what's happening is there is no color space embedded if you copy-paste, and the 'new document' you created has a different color space (your default working space) than the pasted image (no way of knowing really). So in effect, the wrong color space is assigned to your screen capture / pasted image.

(Gave it a quick try, and it seems that this happens as well with OSX if there's no profile embedded (otherwise I get a 'profile mismatch' warning). Not sure how windows works in this regard, but my guess would be that it ignores the profile. You could find out by assigning a profile: Either your monitor profile or the profile the image is in will look good)

If I do a screen capture on Mac OSX, it has the Monitor profile embedded.
If I open in PS, it'll look identical to the image in safari. The RGB values however will be different from the RGB values of the (identical looking ) image in sRGB, sice the color space is different. Not sure how windows handles this.

If you right click and "save as", then open in PS, do you get a 'profile mismatch' or 'missing profile' warning?

OL9245

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 10:05

Not sure, since it looks like you use windows.

In this case the image looks different, so I'd guess that what's happening is there is no color space embedded if you copy-paste, and the 'new document' you created has a different color space (your default working space) than the pasted image (no way of knowing really). So in effect, the wrong color space is assigned to your screen capture / pasted image.

(Gave it a quick try, and it seems that this happens as well with OSX if there's no profile embedded (otherwise I get a 'profile mismatch' warning). Not sure how windows works in this regard, but my guess would be that it ignores the profile. You could find out by assigning a profile: Either your monitor profile or the profile the image is in will look good)

If I do a screen capture on Mac OSX, it has the Monitor profile embedded.
If I open in PS, it'll look identical to the image in safari. The RGB values however will be different from the RGB values of the (identical looking ) image in sRGB, sice the color space is different. Not sure how windows handles this.

If you right click and "save as", then open in PS, do you get a 'profile mismatch' or 'missing profile' warning?

you won! I assigned the SpyderPro profile and got the same colors.
I beleive I have to convert to sRGB immediately, so I will not be at risk of sending an image with an unknown profile. What would you advise me?

Thanks for your help. very much apreciated :)

René Damkot

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 10:26

What would you advise me?

Don't use copy-paste ;)
AFAIK, it you right-click and download an image, you can open it in PS, and it'll have the correct profile, *or* give you a 'missing profile' or 'profile mismatch' warning. So that'll take (part of) the guess work out.

Since your monitor profile probably isn't very much different from sRGB, I don't think it would matter much whether you convert to sRGB before or after adjusting the image, as long as you convert to sRGB at some point ;)

(If you don't, yet save with embedded profile, it will still look okay in other color managed applications, since the profile is embedded, so not "unknown". If you don't embed a profile, all bets are off anyway.)

PeteJaffa

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 10:43

No more need for Safari for a colour managed browser.

Firefox 3 Alpha 7 is colour managed (about time) and now my pics look great.

NOTE: Since it's alpha only a few add-ons work and it will be buggy as hell but it's looking good and very fast.

Also colour management isn't turned on by default.

René Damkot

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 10:51

Hurrah! Finally a color managed FF! :D

PeteJaffa

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 11:19

Forgot to add I was only using Alpha 7 because it was already installed.

Get beta 2 if you're interested in giving it a go.

PeteJaffa

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 11:58

Just had a switch back to FF2 and the difference in colour is unbelievable.

OL9245

23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 18:25

OL9245, when you paste the image into photoshop, it will try to keep the default working space profile, but won't convert it. Copy and paste will simply take the RGB values of an image and transfer them to the image you paste it into.

As an example of how this could happen:
Suppose you had a totally RED square (RGB value 255, 0, 0)
sRGB is your default Photoshop working space
the image you copied had a higher-gamut profile assigned to it (eg AdobeRGB)
When pasted into photoshop, the color range was reduced to fit into the smaller one.
The pure red value in the original image (255, 0, 0) was a very vibrant red. Pasting just kept the RGB values, and so the (255, 0, 0) - pure red - of a smaller gamut range is a dull red, not a vibrant one.

To fix this, you would need to assign a higher-gamut profile (not convert to), in order to keep the RGB values the same, not the colors.

Thanks for the details explanations. I'm slowly starting to understand. Well trying to have a color-managed workflow is more tricky and have much more pittraps than I thought initially :confused:

OL9245

27th of January 2008 (Sun), 09:07

I'm back here with my bizzar calibrated monitor (spider2)
im1 is an image posted on the forum. it has sRGB embeded.

save to disk (not copy-paste)
load in PS. This is im2. Despite im2 was loaded with the correct sRGB profile, it is very different to im1. much less red.

Assign (yes: assign :evil:) Spyder2 profile to im2. this is now im3. im3 has exactly the same colors as im1. not normal!!! but working :evil:

save-4-web -> this creates im4, post on the forum. it is RED :evil:

go back to im3. assign sRGB, then save-4-web -> this creates im5, post on the form. -> im5 is fine!!!

conclusion: I have something wrong with my photoshop settings. because I need to assign a profile to a sRGB image to get normal colors inside of Photoshop, but after the work, I have to assign back the original profile before saving in jpeg and posting.

I'm half happy because I now have a reliable workflow to inport and export in and out of Photoshop. Yet, I'd like to have the true colors without this belly dance. :confused: :( :rolleyes: What did I do wrong?

gcogger

27th of January 2008 (Sun), 13:20

If I understand your description, there is nothing wrong with your settings in Photoshop.

You are viewing im1 in a browser, which is not usually colour managed. The browser shows the colours wrong, because it is not colour managed.

You are viewing im2 in Photoshop, which is colour managed. Photoshop shows the image correctly. This looks different to im1 in the browser because the browser was showing the colours wrong. im1 and im2 are the same image. You are just using different applications to display them, and one of them (the browser) is not showing the colours correctly.

When you assign your monitor profile to im3, this is a way of telling Photoshop to show the colours wrong - it effectively stops Photoshop being colour managed. Don't ever do this unless 'wrong colour' is what you want :)

For im4 I believe that 'save for web' will try to convert the image to sRGB. Because you have messed up the colour in im3 by assigning the wrong profile, it is not surprising that im4 comes out looking strange.

When you go back to im3 and assign sRGB, you are correcting the error you made when you assigned the monitor profile - it makes the image the same as im2 (and im1) again. The save for web will not make any changes to the image, as it is already sRGB. So im5 comes out the same as im1 and im2, and im5 looks the same as im1 on the forum.

What you described is exactly what is expected to happen. The problem seems to be that you are expecting im1 (viewing the image in the browser) to look the same as im2 (viewing the image in Photoshop). This will never happen unless you use a colour managed browser.

René Damkot

27th of January 2008 (Sun), 13:29

I'm half happy because I now have a reliable workflow to inport and export in and out of Photoshop. Yet, I'd like to have the true colors without this belly dance. :confused: :( :rolleyes: What did I do wrong?

Strange.
Sounds like Safari doesn't color manage... Don't know if it should be set on PC?
Does it display for instance ProPhotoRGB images correctly (page 1 or 2 of this post; red flowers, by Cosworth)?

Did you check PS uses the correct monitor profile? (It should be named if you go to PS color settings, and look after RGB working space "MonitorRGB")

I've had something similair once when OSX didn't honor the profile for all programs. Something to do with permissions IIRC. Worked okay once I saved the profile in Library/Colorsync instead of Users/Library/ColorSync.

Crashoran

27th of January 2008 (Sun), 22:03

Hello,

Can you help me get my printer setup correctly with Lightroom? I'm using a Canon i9900.

In color management when I choose "Managed by printer" the print comes out dark, flat, and dull.

Under the custom profile list I have 5 choices to choose from

BJ Color Printer Profile 2000
Canon i9900 MP1
Canon i9900 PR1
Canon i9900 PR2
Canon i9900 SP1

And I am not sure which one to use. Also, I thought there were custom profiles for each different kind of paper you are using?

I tried Canon i9900 PR2 and the print looked way different than on my screen. I've been trying out different settings so much I just ran out of ink. it's expensive to replace :cry:

René Damkot

29th of January 2008 (Tue), 08:25

Start off by reading some links in post #1 on printing with profiles, and what settings to use. Then give some more info on the settings used, and ask more specific questions.

If the printer manages colors, don't let the software, and vice versa.
The link on printing with canon printers will explain the 4 different profiles.

The generic questions will be answered by following the links in post 1, I believe. ;)

macro junkie

22nd of March 2008 (Sat), 17:04

what do u use to view your pics?windows veiwer is crap so what do u guys use?

PeteJaffa

22nd of March 2008 (Sat), 17:07

I usually view all my pics in Lightroom.

macro junkie

22nd of March 2008 (Sat), 17:50

i cant get this to work.instead i have to use raw feture through dpp..i then convert load up to cs2..and save again..GRRR im having to save to jpeg 2 times which is pissing me off..i been at it all day trying all sorts..nothing seems to work.iv been defeated.the colour is brightness is way off.

macro junkie

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 02:43

i copyed your colour settings to the T...when i open an image in raw cs2 what do i set this to.im stil having problems

macro junkie

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 02:59

ok i dont get it now..somone please help me..i read read this thread a few times.

look at these 2 pics..i uploaded a raw file to cs2..i then uploaded the same raw file to canons digital photo professional..

on the left u can see the colour im getting from raw file uploaded to cs2 raw..

the right pic is the raw file i uploaded to digital photo professional

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

macro junkie

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 03:05

this is right now?

macro junkie

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 03:07

and this is right as well?so whats going on?

macro junkie

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 03:13

im still getting RGB8 :evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::e vil:

bbulldog

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 05:18

i thought you should use sRGB IEC61966-2.1 ???

macro junkie

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 05:22

i thought you should use sRGB IEC61966-2.1 ???
who knows..im lost..the hole lot confuses me. :evil:.all i been told is use sRGB or adrobe RGB..no one mention sRGB IEC61966 - 2.1?

bbulldog

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 05:28

that is sRGB :lol: itsthe full name.

This is all confusing me too :( my prints never look like the screen even though i have spyder and embedded profiles. etc. I am thinking of upgrading my Canon IP4300 to a much better printer. maybe the 900.

macro junkie

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 05:37

René Damkot

23rd of March 2008 (Sun), 07:42

Start off by not only reading, but also *understanding* the first page.

sRGB is the same as sRGB IEC61966-2.1

In PS, "RGB/8" shows the default working space is used, "RGB/8*" shows another color space is used, and "RGB/8#" shows you have trouble, since the document doesn't have a profile...

What's up with the "convert to profile" and "assign profile" dialogs? You should not come across those in a regular workflow. (with the exception of converting to sRGB before saving to web)

You set the default working space in the PS prefs, but you also need to set the output color profile in both DPP and ACR.

DPP is going to convert a CR2 file different from ACR, because they are different raw converters.

What you see in DPP should match what you see when you open the converted file in Photoshop.

Epix

26th of March 2008 (Wed), 16:16

General Question:

If I'm using a calibrated monitor and I soft proof in CS3 using an ICC profile given to me by my printing lab, then the print should look the same as what's shown on screen, correct?

René Damkot

27th of March 2008 (Thu), 04:50

Yep.
It's all in the links in post #1 ;)

Epix

27th of March 2008 (Thu), 10:23

Yep.
It's all in the links in post #1 ;)Cool. I'm using a Rebel XT, how do I know what color space the camera is capturing in?

texasreddirt

3rd of April 2008 (Thu), 16:49

I just read through 6 pages of this thread before I think I finally have it figured out. I did a couple tests and everything looks 100% better now. Thanks!!

Epix

7th of April 2008 (Mon), 11:54

Can someone take a screenshot of Lightroom and CS3 settings dialogs, and what they should be set at if you have a calibrated monitor profile? Seems like that would help me out. Thanks.

René Damkot

7th of April 2008 (Mon), 13:06

CS3 settings are identical to CS2 settings in post #1.

In LR you don't have to set anything for color management to work okay.
The only thing you set is the preferred output color space, which is a matter of preference and/or depends on how the image will be used...

I use ProPhotoRGB (16bpc) for images that need heavy corrections done in PS.
For prints I use AdobeRGB, for web sRGB obviously.

Epix

7th of April 2008 (Mon), 13:46

So what part of the settings shown in the screenshots of the OP tells CS3 (and LR) to use the new monitor profile?

René Damkot

8th of April 2008 (Tue), 05:11

The OS does that.
You can check if PS recognises the profile, by going into the color prefs, and have a look in the RGB working space drop box: The monitor profile should be named there ("monitorRGB - NameofyourProfile.icc")

Epix

11th of April 2008 (Fri), 20:49

For Photoshop Color Settings->Working RBG, I have a choice to select my monitor profile. Should that be what it's set to?

gcogger

12th of April 2008 (Sat), 07:59

For Photoshop Color Settings->Working RBG, I have a choice to select my monitor profile. Should that be what it's set to?

N, no, no, no - absolutely not - never ever do that! Sorry, but I didn't want any ambiguity :)

The monitor profile is used to characterise the properties of your monitor, and is generally kind of 'hidden'. It is used behind the scenes by colour managed apps to compensate for the monitor's characteristics before displaying the image, so that you see the colour correctly.

You should be using a working colour space such as sRGB, Adobe RGB or Pro Photo RGB. See the links at the start of this thread for discussion of which is right for you.

If you were to use the monitor profile as your working space there would be strange effects. For example, a smooth gradient of RGB values would not look smooth on screen, and colours with equal values of R, G and B would not be a neutral grey.

Epix

12th of April 2008 (Sat), 08:46

N, no, no, no - absolutely not - never ever do that! Sorry, but I didn't want any ambiguity :)

The monitor profile is used to characterise the properties of your monitor, and is generally kind of 'hidden'. It is used behind the scenes by colour managed apps to compensate for the monitor's characteristics before displaying the image, so that you see the colour correctly.

You should be using a working colour space such as sRGB, Adobe RGB or Pro Photo RGB. See the links at the start of this thread for discussion of which is right for you.

If you were to use the monitor profile as your working space there would be strange effects. For example, a smooth gradient of RGB values would not look smooth on screen, and colours with equal values of R, G and B would not be a neutral grey.Thanks for non-ambiguous answer. I've got everything set to AdobeRGB for consistency. I suppose it's just a good sign that Photoshop recognizes that there's a new monitor profile in effect.

gcogger

12th of April 2008 (Sat), 08:51

Thanks for non-ambiguous answer. I've got everything set to AdobeRGB for consistency. I suppose it's just a good sign that Photoshop recognizes that there's a new monitor profile in effect.

Why is there "a new monitor profile in effect"? Unless this is unrelated to what we were talking about?

Epix

12th of April 2008 (Sat), 08:58

Why is there "a new monitor profile in effect"? Unless this is unrelated to what we were talking about?It's just like you said, I suppose. I used the calibrator to come up with a monitor profile that was then set as the default profile in the OS. I know it got set correctly because Photoshop has it as an option under Working Space as the monitor profile.

gcogger

12th of April 2008 (Sat), 09:36

OK, that makes sense, thanks :)

Stime187

17th of April 2008 (Thu), 18:35

Rene,

First off, thanks for doing this, I read the whole thing and couldn't quite discern what was going on in my case... anyways, I'm hoping you (and everyone) can potentially help.

I recently got a new laptop (Macbook Pro) and calibrated it with a Spyder (not sure what model) and set the profile as being the calibrated one for my display.

I'm using Adobe Bridge for conversion/viewing and Photoshop CS3 for processing/editing.

In Bridge, I set my conversion as sRGB so I can just have all my work flow in the sRGB working space. I also synchronized my color settings between Bridge and CS3.

Anyways, when I open a photo in Photoshop (working in sRGB) it looks normal/correct. But, when I 'Save for Web' the color detail washes out and it shifts (even more so once uploaded). I've double and triple checked that it's in the sRGB working space, so I don't think it's that typical problem.

Also, another tidbit that might help... if I soft-proof in "Windows RGB" the image looks CORRECT but in "Monitor RGB" I notice a color shift.

Here's a snapshot to help (hopefully!) show what I'm seeing... same photo, one in CS3 and on the web... (although it's not quite that drastic, that has had the shift done to it twice now for the web file)

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/stime187/difference_color.jpg

Any thoughts? Thanks. This is driving me crazy.

- Scott

René Damkot

18th of April 2008 (Fri), 01:09

and set the profile as being the calibrated one for my display.
Since you also make the following comment, I'm assuming you mean in the system prefs (that's good, but I think is done automatically); not in PS color settings (don't ever set it here ;))...

In Bridge, I set my conversion as sRGB so I can just have all my work flow in the sRGB working space. I also synchronized my color settings between Bridge and CS3.
Good.

Anyways, when I open a photo in Photoshop (working in sRGB) it looks normal/correct. But, when I 'Save for Web' the color detail washes out and it shifts (even more so once uploaded). I've double and triple checked that it's in the sRGB working space, so I don't think it's that typical problem.
In post #1 there is a screenshot (the last one) about the save for web dialog... How are your 'view settings'?
Also: what browser are you using and are you embedding the profile?

Also, another tidbit that might help... if I soft-proof in "Windows RGB" the image looks CORRECT but in "Monitor RGB" I notice a color shift.
See post #40; this is normal. It shows the difference between sRGB and your monitor profile.

Here's a snapshot to help (hopefully!) show what I'm seeing... same photo, one in CS3 and on the web... (although it's not quite that drastic, that has had the shift done to it twice now for the web file)

Twice? How? I'm thinking you're not saving with profile, opening the 'web' image, assigning sRGB then save for web again?

Anyway: difference is visible here. If this is 'twice' it might be as good as it gets...

Embed the sRGB profile, take a look at it with safari. That way, both the rest of the world and you are pretty sure of what they are seeing. You can only do so much...

Stime187

18th of April 2008 (Fri), 13:27

Thanks, René!

In post #1 there is a screenshot (the last one) about the save for web dialog... How are your 'view settings'?
Also: what browser are you using and are you embedding the profile?

That definitely changed (fixed?) something! I had "Uncompensated Color" checked and not "Use Document Color"

Browser is the latest version of Firefox (not color managed, I know).

See post #40; this is normal. It shows the difference between sRGB and your monitor profile.

Okay, good to know. I can stop worrying about that aspect.

Twice? How? I'm thinking you're not saving with profile, opening the 'web' image, assigning sRGB then save for web again?

Anyway: difference is visible here. If this is 'twice' it might be as good as it gets...

Yeah, twice meaning that I put it on the web (shifted when saved), then took a screen shot and saved for web (shifted when saved), so twice total. Hope that makes sense.

Embed the sRGB profile, take a look at it with safari. That way, both the rest of the world and you are pretty sure of what they are seeing. You can only do so much...

Hadn't thought of that, so Safari is color managed? Thanks. I'll compare them.

Thanks for all the help.