STICKY:  Color problems? [work in progress?]

Deanphoto wrote in post #3732248
You my firend, are an absolute star!!

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

The image you posted is in ProPhotoRGB.

Athena wrote in post #3761348
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 documentis 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) 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?

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.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

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.

Maybe someone else has a brilliant insight?

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.

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

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.o​rg/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?

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.

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.

Alvy wrote in post #3880399
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!

Alvy wrote in post #3880399
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)

Alvy wrote in post #3880399
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)

Alvy wrote in post #3880399
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."

Robf wrote in post #3881078
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.

Robf wrote in post #3881078
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.

Robf wrote in post #3881078
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.

Robf wrote in post #3881078
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.

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

René Damkot wrote in post #3274234
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

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.

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

dpastern wrote in post #4041743
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)

dpastern wrote in post #4041743
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.

dpastern wrote in post #4041743
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...

dpastern wrote in post #4041743
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....

dpastern wrote in post #4041743
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.

dpastern wrote in post #4041743
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.

Athena wrote in post #4042558
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.

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

Athena wrote in post #4042558
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.

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

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.

In2Photos wrote in post #4042976
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.