STICKY:  Color problems? [work in progress?]

René Damkot wrote in post #8976861
When you convert the CR2 using sRGB, any colors outside sRGB will be lost. So converting to AdobeRGB only makes sense if you want to "add" color beyond sRGB, for instance by adding saturation.

If I read your post correctly, you cannot access the DPP prefs? Try here:

You could also use ACR of course

Thank you very much! The only other question i have is will i have to save this pref for every file i access to import out? I have saved AdobeRGB in my camera, then when i upload into DPP , even though the pref are still sRGB will this hinder the colour scheme? (hard to explain, but if it's imported with the pref sRGB in DPP but the camera's set to Adobe and it's exported Adobe,will this just bypass any sRGB DPP has)

Also as for the ACR in Bridge i believe? It keeps saying CR editing is not enabled and i can't seem to find how to launch it?? Otherwise i'd much rather use this
Thanks again for the screen shot..this helps heaps, at least for tying this thing over for now

Don't know that particular error message fort ACR. It might need to be updated to work with a newer camera.
Latest version is 5.5. It has some issues on PPC, but should be fine on Intel Macs.

On the DPP setting. I think if you select all images, then go Adjustment > Work color space, that should set it for all. But you'll need to do that every time, since the "default" in your DPP is at sRGB.

René Damkot wrote in post #8981265
Don't know that particular error message fort ACR. It might need to be updated to work with a newer camera.
Latest version is 5.5. It has some issues on PPC, but should be fine on Intel Macs.

On the DPP setting. I think if you select all images, then go Adjustment > Work color space, that should set it for all. But you'll need to do that every time, since the "default" in your DPP is at sRGB.

Can't thank you enough great help and much appreciated!

I've been reading the whole colour management topic on various message boards, websites and the such and I still don't get the following:

DPP for RAW editing. Good.
Colour matching set to Monitor profile set by my Spyder3Pro calibrator. Good.
Batch conversion (keeping embed profile clicked). Good.
Opening JPEG/TIFF in CS4. Good.
Saving for web. BAD

What happens is when I "Save for Web", the original is "duller" than the JPEG web picture, which is overly saturated. Why does this happen?
But opening the file in Windows will show it correctly?

First: I assume you mean "set the correct monitor profile in DPP" when you say "Colour matching set to Monitor profile set by my Spyder3Pro calibrator."? You don't set the monitor profile anywhere else. Certainly not in PS!

Use sRGB for web.

Have a read here: http://www.getcolorman​aged.com/color-management/saveforweb/

I explained it there

René Damkot wrote in post #9264708
First: I assume you mean "set the correct monitor profile in DPP" when you say "Colour matching set to Monitor profile set by my Spyder3Pro calibrator."? You don't set the monitor profile anywhere else. Certainly not in PS!

Use sRGB for web.

Have a read here: http://www.getcolorman​aged.com/color-management/saveforweb/

I explained it there

Hi Rene,

Yup, I set my monitor profile in DPP instead of sRGB. And nope, not in PS :P

And ah, I took a read at your blog and it has some very good information. I see that you lose a bit of information when you convert to sRGB but that is a safe measure especially since most people do not know anything about colour management (myself included) and may have a browser that does not colour manage.

However, it's just strange to me that the colours are overly saturated when I view it in a browser, rather than losing a bit of colour information. But when I save the picture and view it back in PS, it looks just fine (how I made it). Is this due to my wide-gamut monitor?

Since, on my laptop (which doesn't have the best screen in the world but is calibrated to what it can do), it's the opposite. When I save the picture and view it in photoshop, the colours are saturated and nice, but are not as saturated when viewed in a browser (Firefox 3.5.6). This is what I thought should happen when you follow these instructions. The colours are nicely made when you actually edit a picture, but when you convert to sRGB using the "save for web" feature, you lose a bit of colour when you export it and upload to the internet.

I'm totally confused

zVp wrote in post #9265702
Is this due to my wide-gamut monitor?

Yes.
When using a non color managed application the "colors will be sent straight to the monitor". Oblivious of the .icc profile embedded in the image, the RGB values are sent to the videocard.

When viewing an sRGB image in a non color managed application on a wide gamut screen, the sRGB value of (for instance) RGB(255,0,0) is displayed as RGB(255,0,0) on the monitor. But "monitor RGB (255,0,0)" is way more red then "sRGB (255,0,0)" in this case.
Thus the image appears oversaturated.

On a laptop screen, "monitor RGB (255,0,0)" is less red then "sRGB (255,0,0)". The image wil appear a bit "dull". An AdobeRGB image will appear even more "dull" on this same monitor screen.

Use a color managed browser, specially on a wide gamut screen.

Bit more on "different numbers for the same color" (and vice versa) in this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=707058

René Damkot wrote in post #9265951
Yes.
When using a non color managed application the "colors will be sent straight to the monitor". Oblivious of the .icc profile embedded in the image, the RGB values are sent to the videocard.

When viewing an sRGB image in a non color managed application on a wide gamut screen, the sRGB value of (for instance) RGB(255,0,0) is displayed as RGB(255,0,0) on the monitor. But "monitor RGB (255,0,0)" is way more red then "sRGB (255,0,0)" in this case.
Thus the image appears oversaturated.

On a laptop screen, "monitor RGB (255,0,0)" is less red then "sRGB (255,0,0)". The image wil appear a bit "dull". An AdobeRGB image will appear even more "dull" on this same monitor screen.

Bit more on "different numbers for the same color" (and vice versa) in this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=707058

Ah. So that explains the over saturation.

But wait, I thought Firefox was a colour managed program? Or is only Safari?


Oh, BTW Rene, your explanations are top-notch. I wish I could explain things as well as you can

Thanks

FF3.0 needs to be set to color manage.
FF3.5 is color managed by default, but only for images with .icc profile. You can set it to "fully" color manage like 3.0.
You can do that by typing in some stuff in the adress bar, or by using an Add-on (I think there's an add on for 3.5 as well as for 3.0 now)

FF3.5 does not work with v4. profiles, and some monitor profiles (like mine )
A few links about that in the mentioned blogpost

René Damkot wrote in post #9266015
FF3.5 is color managed by default, but only for images with .icc profile. You can set it to "fully" color manage like 3.0.

So basically, if I attach an .icc profile to the picture, it *should* look the same in photoshop as in Firefox? But the problem lies in that the newest version of Firefox doesn't support ICC v4? Does this mean that when you embed a profile when you "save for web", you are embedding a v4 profile, which then when Firefox attempts to render it, it gives you a different colour - and in my case, under saturating when viewing it on a laptop and under saturating when viewing it on a wide-gamut monitor?

Sorry for all the questions, just this whole thing is so darn confusing lol.

ARG I've figured it out. Facebook STRIPS the embedded profile! Uploading the same file to Facebook and Imageshack yields different pictures. Facebook is less saturated on my laptop, while imageshack is EXACTLY (or close) to what photoshop has. Holy. What a headache.

FF 3.5 should display an image with embedded profile (just about) identical to PS. Same goes for Safari and FF3.0 with CM enabled.

FF 3.0 and 3.5 with full Color management should display an sRGB image correct, wether or not an icc profile is embedded.

Save for Web does not embed a v4 profile. (since you should be using sRGB, which by default is a v2 profile )

Edit: Ah. Facebook.. Yep. That sucks.
Enable full colormanagement in FF 3.5 (CM mode 1)

Ah! CM mode 1 works! But... Why? Lol.

CM mode 1 works for all graphics, but CM mode 2 works for only tagged images.

Does this mean, CM mode 1 is better?
I'm guessing CM mode 1 uses what your monitor profile is (set by the calibrator) for all pictures that do not have a color profile embedded, while uses the embedded colour profiles for pictures that do have one embedded?

And CM mode 2 works but using the embedded profile when there is one embedded, but just shows the picture without a profile embedded as what the monitor can output? (Although, shouldn't this be helped by the default color profile set in the system - using the one that my calibrator made)

Oie. This is really a headache. I feel really bad for those in the business of actually needing to have their colours managed on the internet, in print, and etc. I only do this as a hobby.


edit:
When using CM mode 1, the rollovers in this page http://www.smugmug.com​/help/safari/safari.ht​ml are the same but when using CM mode 2, they are different... I can't put my head around why? Unless what I said before was right (which I don't think it is, heh).

But honestly, thank you so much Rene for explaining this!

CM mode 1 assumes sRGB for untagged images (and css)
CM mode 2 doesn't color manage (so assumes "monitor Profile")

In my blog there's a link ("Safari wonkyness" IIRC) that explains a bit.

René Damkot wrote in post #9266491
CM mode 1 assumes sRGB for untagged images (and css)
CM mode 2 doesn't color manage (so assumes "monitor Profile")

In my blog there's a link ("Safari wonkyness" IIRC) that explains a bit.

Thank a million