You do realize that color managed applications by definition send different numbers to the screen compared to non-colormanaged applications?It was my understanding that the RGB numbers should never change, only how the system interprets them, and what it sends to the screen changes. Even so, why would I be getting different numbers in Aperture and Photoshop, when they are both colour-managed programs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103285\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What I can't understand is why images are displaying correctly in non-managed programs, but the colour-managed ones look awful. If anything, shouldn't it be the other way around?
I think one possible reason for this is that the profile is inaccurate. Make sure the sensor and the filter are clean (and that you actually use the filter) and recalibrate to targets that minimize videocard LUTs use (Native/2.2).I've formatted, and it doesn't seem to have helped anything. I recalibrated to 2.2 Native, which didn't help either.
I don't really know how the conversion engine itself works and if it's possible for it to malfunction... Well, tell us how the formating works out.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=103306\")
Are you actually converting these images or just tagging them with new profiles? I've seen plenty of horrible results on MacBook displays, but never anything like what you're describing.I'm using the export function of Aperture, which I believe converts to the selected profile. (in my case, sRGB) Even if I use Photoshop, it doesn't matter whether I assign a profile or convert to sRGB, it still looks wrong in colour managed apps unless I use the "Save for Web" feature, which removes all profiles. The image in that window looks totally different to the one that I have been editing, however, so it's useless. (soft-proofing makes no difference)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let's take a look at your profiles. In Spyder2 Pro after validation you can take a good look at the numbers and the curves. In Colorsync you can look at TRC and vcgt tags and curves overe there. I suppose if colormanaged applications turn orange into red that's because the profile indicates your monitor is not displaying orange correctly. Take a look at the curves - you should be able to get at least some meaningful info from there.As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with the profile itself, I think it's how colorsync is handling things that isn't working correctly. Red looks fine to me, with only minor adjustments:
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=103384\")
One thing that can screw things up is ambient lighting. Maybe you have some incadescent light leeking to the sensor while you're profiling.I always create profiles in the dark with no lights on; that is not the issue. I have used ColorEyes to create profiles before, and the only real difference was an improvement in greyscale accuracy. I was still having the same problems that I am now.
The other two options are that the colorimeter is defective or that the software is not doing a good job profiling your monitor.
The software theory is easy to check - there are free trials of Basiccolor and Coloreyes that you can install.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had to go to a mac to see how your images look..The second and third image were tagged with my display profile intentionally, as that illustrates how all images look in colour-managed programs.
You are tagging them with LCD profiles (1-Color LCD, Color LCD...). The fact that they look the same to us in Safari means that you are just screwing up your color conversion settings. The last two images are not sRGB and are not supposed to look like the first one in non-colormanaged browsers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Safari treats tagged images according to what they are tagged with. It treats untagged images depending on the version of Safari. There are articles about that. I think it used to be as sRGB and now it's like monitor RGB or something to that extent.Right, but even images that are tagged with sRGB are displaying like they're tagged with my monitor profile. (now that I've done more testing / reading, that seems to be what the issue is)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew,That is my MacBook Pro LCD, which is about 85cd/m2 after calbration according to CED Pro. (brightness at 10/16) While I understand that these displays don't match up to ones designed for critical colour work, they're a big improvement over the ones on the old Powerbooks (far better than my 17" G4 was) and it should at least be possible to do basic image editing on them. The capture does make both look a bit darker, as I exported using my display profile (which I know is wrong, but it's the only way I know the colour looks the same as what I am seeing) but you can at least see the differences quite clearly.
Good capture of your display. That's the MacBookPro screen, right?
The one on the left shows the natural looking orange and the right shows a darker/richer hot red.
The numbers for the "1-LCD Color" profile are pretty close to the MacBookPro sRGB. I'm at a loss on this. I never realized LCD's calibrate with such numbers as seen in PS's CustomRGB under Color Settings. They seem to really take a hit in the red channel with a combo x=.60, y.35 giving very bright orangish 255 red that Photoshop has to comensate for in CM previews. sRGB is x=.64, y=.33 a more intense hot red. The data in the images reflects a darker orange with 218red, 45green!!? and 20blue. Your LCD's obviously quite bright. Now I know what SWOP certified really means with Apple LCD's.
What's loaded in Colorsync Utility as default color spaces for documents and devices? Maybe Aperture and Safari is referencing whatever profiles are loaded there giving wrong previews when editing in Aperture and viewing in Safari. Just guessing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I opened the thread at photo.net, ...
Again, soft-proofing to the monitor profile just disables color management. No wonder Lightroom doesn't offer it. Your problem is with color management, don't try to disable it - try to fix it.I had a feeling that soft-proofing to the display profile would be disabling colour management, but the problem is that when I do that, colour looks correct. It looks very close to what I actually see with my eyes, how it looks on the back of the camera, and how it looks on any other device I have that I can load the image on.
If sRGB images look significantly different in color-managed and non-colormanaged applications it's because the profile indicates your monitor is not "similar" to sRGB. So the applications do some drastic color correction to compensate for that. Does it make sense? Tell me if it doesn't.
The fact that you get similar results in Windows on the same computer only reinforces my impression that there's a problem with a profile.
I'll look at it again tomorrow...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
... FYI I used 'Native' white point and a Gamma of 2.2 in the Eye-One profiling software (I found that, for some reason, when using both 'Native' white point & 'Native' Gamma, I got a bluish tint over my entire screen).
OK, a few fundamental things we need to work out:I have done that, and everything has stayed the same. However, while this orange box now looks correct, I've gone through some more images and blues still look wrong.
1.) So you're satisfied now that colors look OK only when your MacBook Pro is hooked up to your CRT? Now, ditch the CRT, restart MacBook Pro. Are you still getting 'correct' colors?
2.) Please answer Serge's question: what monitor profile is OS X now using?Everything is using the correct profiles. (macbook profile on the macbook display etc)
3.) To a number of the posters here: who the heck made it up in their minds that color-managed applications and non-color-managed applications are *supposed* display the same colors for a sRGB image when color management is properly set up and monitors are profiled? This is crazy, and would *only* be true if your monitor's profile, after proper hardware calibration, happened to basically be the exact inverse transform of the sRGB profile. And that would be true only if your monitor had a very 'sRGB-like response' (as Serge points out).I was under the impression that I should have been able to get consistent colour in both Safari and Firefox when exporting to the web, as I believed that unmanaged applications were basically treated like they were tagged with sRGB however I now know that this is wrong.
Another variable is Andrew's relying on the accuracy of his Fuji F30's LCD preview matching what he's suppose to see in sRGB on his system. Those tiny 2" camera LCD previews aren't calibrated and can't be trusted for accuracy. I had the F10 and it never showed hue/saturation the same way as it did in sRGB on my calibrated system nor did it match the scene as shot. Its LCD previews were always a bit oversaturated with very cyanish greens and overly reddish browns.I wasn't saying that the screen was accurate (I know that it isn't) just that the colour on that screen matched up very closely to what I actually saw with my eyes when taking the photo, and what I was seeing in unmanaged applications.
Andrew, if you get the chance view the linked image at the bottom and assign sRGB, your CRT or Toshiba profile in what ever color managed app that allows it. The image is a composite of elements from several test targets which contain colors that shift noticeably when viewed in CM apps while changing the system display profile.Yellows look yellow, the head scarf is slightly magenta and that blue box does look blue... though I'm not sure I would call it "sky blue."
The reds should look hot red, not orange. The patch of blue to the right of the yellow PhotoDisc rectangle should look sky blue not purplish or violet. The yellows should not look overly cyanish or reddish. The womans head scarf should be slightly magenta-ish, but not orange. None of the colors should appear to glow as if oversaturated except the RGBCMY color purities.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ype=post&id=835 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=835)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm wondering if some type of update by clicking is involved with calibrators because I don't know how the software is suppose to know which associated profile/vLUT it needs to clear before measuring the response of one display while the other is attached to the same video card. Is there a section in the software that allows choosing?
On the Mac, you get/set the LUT by display ID using a function called CMSetGammaByAVID.
Could you elaborate on that? How do you actually apply it?
LOL. I mean - me being neither an OS X tech support guy nor a programmer - how do I make it work? Or can I make it work at all?
My goal is to clear the LUTs. What do I do? Run the terminal and type the code you've posted?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=104496\")
Otherwise, no, you can't really make it work without an engineering background.
Yes, thanks, that's what I meant. I'll try that utility - but for practical purposes the no-LUT-adjustments profiles on Bruce Lindbloom's site are probably easier.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew,I'm now using maximum brightness for white and minimum for black. (previously I was using 120cd/m2 white)
I tried the ColorEyes software with my i1 colorimeter... gave me pretty much the same profile as the i1 software gave me.
Blues are still pretty offensive in color-managed applications.
BTW, for 'Black Point Target' in the ColorEyes software, I selected 'Min. Luminance'... but then didn't know what to do with the 'Precalibration' button... I went straight to profiling. Is this wrong? What did you set your Black Point Target as?
Thanks,
Rishi
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know how severe this purple blue's issue is. I don't know if it's subtle or pronounced but I suspect it's a chromatic adaptation transform error ocurring probably caused by the overly bright luminance settings indicated here and how the colormeter conveys this to the software in arriving at the final luminance targets in the calibration/profile. The blue channel greatly influences brightness on displays and having luminance settings of over 120cd/m2 to start out with may be beyond the hardware and software to cope with.That is pretty much exactly the issue I'm having, and I am now calibrating with the backlight set to 116cd/m2. (the next step down is 98cd/m2, and I was told that I should be calibrating within 100-120cd/m2)
A while back I made a chart of what chromatic adaptation transfrom errors show up as in CM previews using old versions of Apple and Supercal eyeball calibrators whose colorant descriptors chosen within the software had incorrect color temp XYZ formulas. A lot of calibration software sometime before 2004 were claiming great improvements in this area.
Old versions of EyeOneDisplay's i1Match software (pre-3.0) indicated an improvement to its chromatic transform formula in version 3.01. I saw this improvement after upgrading because with the old version I was getting the same hue/saturation errors but more pronounced than described in this thread as I was getting with the eyeball calibrators.
Here's the chart, see if it's similar to what you're describing here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So much for colormeters measuring accurate color temp.If I have two colorimeters now that produce roughly the same results, I don't think it's the hardware, or the software creating the profiles at fault at all - I never did think that would be the case. (though I am surprised at the differences in luminance I'm seeing between the Spyder2 and the DTP94)
Lets be fair. This may not be the sensor at all. The software could easily be to blame for these results
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105548\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They're not suppose to look blue.If that's the case, then things are looking fine then, as that's how they look here.
The left top and bottom and right bottom mortars should have varying degrees of violet=(lighter shade of purple) except the upper right one which should look cyanish baby blue. If the other three are richer looking violet/purple, that's not a that big of a problem and is more an issue with luminance/backlighting/gamma differences between displays. What is a problem is hue shifts which this chart was made to emulate thus you see the violet/purple and baby blue caused by inaccurate display profiles.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try profiling your MacBook Pro LCD but, this time, instead of using 'Native White Point', set your white point in your profiling software to 6500.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]I've actually been using D65 for most of my recent profiles, as it does look better, but still not right.