Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Graham Mitchell on May 19, 2009, 01:52:46 pm
-
Hi everyone, I'm having a mini colour crisis here as my normal workflow seems to work sometimes and not others. For example, yesterday with this beauty shot I noticed it was very saturated on the web, despite doing everything I normally do. My Photoshop settings are set to the standard setup which all colour guides recommend, and my screen is calibrated (though the fact that I am having colour issues on the same monitor would seem to rule out any monitor variation from the equation).
Ok, here is a file in Photoshop, in Adobe RGB colour space, on the left. I used 'save for web' including the convert to sRGB option and 'embed profile', and opened that in Safari in the background (a colour-managed browser). Here you can see the two together on the same screen:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture3_copy3.jpg)
(btw, it looks the same in Firefox with colour management switched on).
Any idea what's going on? I need to really desaturate the Phtooshop file to make it look good in the browser. What is even weirder is that I have always had very consistent results going from Photoshop to my print shop (using a large format Epson - excellent printer btw).
So I seem to need two different versions of the file. One for AdobeRGB printing, and another desaturated version for conversion to web.
Another puzzling thing is why the 'save for web' window looks like this, with very different saturations in the 2 windows:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture2_copy8.jpg)
To make things worse, this seems to happen with some images and not others. Oh btw, it doesn't help if I convert to sRGB in Photoshop outside the 'save for web' function first.
-
Graham,
what you are facing is typical "save for web" color trouble. When that happens I just change saturation and color till I get what I want, on the saved file. It has to do with specific color range of some images and no other trick seems to work on all occasions. You may find this helpful: http://www.viget.com/inspire/the-mysteriou...eb-color-shift/ (http://www.viget.com/inspire/the-mysterious-save-for-web-color-shift/)
-
Graham,
what you are facing is typical "save for web" color trouble. When that happens I just change saturation and color till I get what I want, on the saved file. It has to do with specific color range of some images and no other trick seems to work on all occasions. You may find this helpful: http://www.viget.com/inspire/the-mysteriou...eb-color-shift/ (http://www.viget.com/inspire/the-mysterious-save-for-web-color-shift/)
Yes, I have had it happen from time to time, and it drives me crazy!
I've heard of many others with the same problem, and never a solution, but I'll see if anyone here can crack the problem. I don't like that article's suggestion very much, unfortunately.
-
I might be wrong, but I don't think there is any better solution than re-correcting images after saving. Internet explorers don't understand monitor calibration, not to mention that in the end, you never know who will be viewing your images (meaning monitor setup etc). But lets see what others think.
-
Graham:
What version of Safari are you running? I don't use save-for-web (for this reason) but had this exact same issue with Safari, but then a few revisions back it got fixed. What really sucks, is you will probably find your image looks fine -- meaning both look identical -- in a NON-CM'd browser! (FWIW, I can confirm the latest Safari 4.0 public beta seems very stable and is a lot faster than the predecessors.)
-
Yes, I have had it happen from time to time, and it drives me crazy!
Graham, did you try to save the JPG not with the "safe for web" tool but with the regular command "safe as" -> JPG? What is going on if you do this?
Did you also check the desaturation in the colour settings (advanced) of Photoshop? And your softproof settings?
-
Graham, did you try to save the JPG not with the "safe for web" tool but with the regular command "safe as" -> JPG? What is going on if you do this?
Did you also check the desaturation in the colour settings (advanced) of Photoshop? And your softproof settings?
This is what happens if I convert to sRGB and JPG normally. First window is original. Second is sRGB JPG open in PS. Third is sRGB JPG open in Safari.
(Firefox looks the same as Safari).
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/3results.jpg)
So I have two colour managed programs showing the same file on the same monitor very differently.
One possibility - Photoshop uses a different sRGB profile to the rest of the world?
-
Graham:
What version of Safari are you running? I don't use save-for-web (for this reason) but had this exact same issue with Safari, but then a few revisions back it got fixed. What really sucks, is you will probably find your image looks fine -- meaning both look identical -- in a NON-CM'd browser! (FWIW, I can confirm the latest Safari 4.0 public beta seems very stable and is a lot faster than the predecessors.)
I'm using 3.2.3, but I usually use Firefox. Anyway, the image appears the same way in both browsers.
-
tho_mas, desaturation is deselected in PS settings. Proofing is also switched off but makes no difference when I toggle it.
-
This is what happens if I convert to sRGB and JPG normally. First window is original. Second is sRGB JPG open in PS. Third is sRGB JPG open in Safari.
(...)
One possibility - Photoshop uses a different sRGB profile to the rest of the world?
I've downloaded the file frotm the "recent works"-thread. here the image looks like your Safari screenshot... in Photoshop, in Firefox, in Safari, in the Mac Preview... everywhere.
So I think there is something wrong with your monitor profile in Photoshop for some reason.
Does the monitor profile show up correctly in the colour setting (menu "working spaces... scroll up to "Monitor RGB")?
Proofing is also switched off but makes no difference when I toggle it.
when you toggle to what? To monitor RGB or to your preferred proof colour?
-
I've downloaded the file frotm the "recent works"-thread. here the image looks like your Safari screenshot... in Photoshop, in Firefox, in Safari, in the Mac Preview... everywhere.
So I think there is something wrong with your monitor profile in Photoshop for some reason.
Interesting...
Does the monitor profile show up correctly in the colour setting (menu "working spaces... scroll up to "Monitor RGB")?
Yes, it's there.
when you toggle to what? To monitor RGB or to your preferred proof colour?
If I toggle 'Proof Colors' (I'm using CS4 in case that makes a difference)
-
The recipe I've been using for creating website images is as follows (and I made an Action of it);
Flatten image
Resize
Convert Mode (from 16 to 8-bit depth)
Convert to Profile sRGB, Rel Col Intent with Black Point Compensation With Dither.
Export using Save for Web in JPEG format at Quality 60, With Optimized, With 1 Pass.
This whole process preserves the original file intacy, happens in a jiffy and produces what seems to me an acceptable approximation of the original - very much less deviation than what is illustrated in the previous posts.
-
Hi Graham,
I convert for the web in the same manner as you, in CS4, using the save for web devices menu, but with some additional steps plus converting the color profile from adobe to sRGB prior to sending it to web devices menu. The reason for this is that I can't control how Save for Web & Devices converts the profile and for the most part I have no color issues with browsers working this way.
After working the image and saving the psd file, still in Adobe RGB:
1- Convert image size to desired web size using Bicubic.
2- Sharpen web sized image.
3- Edit<Convert to Profile<Destination Space: Working RGB-sRGB IEC6196-2.1< Conversion Options<Engine: Adobe (ACE)<Intent: Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual, which ever gives better results. Click Use Black Point Compensation and Flatten Image to Preserve Appearance.
IGNORE Preview, its going to look off both here and when you Save to Web & Devices!
(http://www.box.net/shared/static/1pryukchu7.jpg)
4- Then, once I see the converted image I Save for Web & Devices. I found that Relative Colorimetric works perfectly most of the time and Perceptual when Relative doesn't work.
-
Interesting...
don't know yet :-)
Yes, it's there.
good.
Honestly have no idea at the moment... everything seams to be set the right way.
Nevertheless in this case my read is that the problem is the conversion to the monitor profile in Photoshop (exceptionally!).
With Dither.
what for? To increase noise?
Actually Dither may be helpful when you convert from a certain colour space to a bigger colour space. But one have to see if Dither is really the way to go.
-
I found that Relative Colorimetric works perfectly most of the time and Perceptual when Relative doesn't work.
There is no way to do perceptual conversion to sRGB. If the target profile is a TRC Matrix profile (such as sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB and others) the sole rendering intend available is relative colormetric as Matrix profiles have no table for perceptual RI.
see myth #21: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_21-25 (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_21-25)
Only LUT profiles, such as printer profiles (mostly with a big file size while Matrix profiles are small like 4KB) contain tables for perceptual RI (or better: they may contain a percaptual table).
It's somewhat irritating as Photoshop offers the option for all the profiles... but Matrix profile provide only colormetric RI.
-
Dither is on by default - this particular setting doesn't seem to matter much one way or another in anything I've done. The important thing is the major process steps and their order, making sure BPC is on for "convert to Profile". "ddk" is doing pretty much what I do, also with satisfactory results.
-
"ddk" is doing pretty much what I do, also with satisfactory results.
yes. But Graham did it right as well...
@Graham:
here a screenshot from my display. Took the downloaded file from the other thread that is in sRGB
Left: MAC Preview
Foreground: Photoshop
Right/Background: your triptych from above
So on my display it's somewhere in the middle. But your Photoshop display view is less saturated and tends to green (while Safari is a bit oversaturated).
[attachment=13795:screen.jpg]
-
Are you sure that you have embedded the profile, not just assigned it? This looks a lot like the examples given here Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/web-browser-color-management.html) when the profile was not embedded.
-
Are you sure that you have embedded the profile, not just assigned it?
see:
This is what happens if I convert to sRGB and JPG normally. First window is original. Second is sRGB JPG open in PS. Third is sRGB JPG open in Safari.
-
FWIW, I pulled it into CS off the other forum and it appears identical to the posted version there viewed in Safari 4 side-by side -- and it looked pretty good to me as a stand-alone. For reference, that in turn looks more similar to the most saturated on your triptic, but not as red and slightly less saturated, yet warmer and more saturated than your less saturated samples (which do appear to lean slightly to green on her shoulders) if that makes sense. Weird. IMHO -- and admittedly I did not see this model in person -- the large version as posted in that forum looks darn good to me on skin, eyes, hair and lips...
-
Web browsers don't care about monitor profiles, ie they can't use them properly. I ve checked images again and on my Eizo monitor they look very different but quite similar on my Lacie one! Strange? No, I think its just a matter of luck in terms of image+monitor behavior combination and nothing you can actually fully control. Just some thoughts.
-
Thanks for the suggestions about sRGB conversion but I was doing all of the same steps already. Still hoping for an answer!
-
Thanks for the suggestions about sRGB conversion but I was doing all of the same steps already. Still hoping for an answer!
@foto-z:
What monitor calibration sw are you using?
Could you check in the colorsync utility whether all gamma values are equal?
I tried the image here in Safari, Preview, and an older PS, all looked equal, and similar to the saturated warm version.
-
The recipe I've been using for creating website images is as follows (and I made an Action of it);
Flatten image
Resize
Convert Mode (from 16 to 8-bit depth)
Convert to Profile sRGB, Rel Col Intent with Black Point Compensation With Dither.
Export using Save for Web in JPEG format at Quality 60, With Optimized, With 1 Pass.
This whole process preserves the original file intacy, happens in a jiffy and produces what seems to me an acceptable approximation of the original - very much less deviation than what is illustrated in the previous posts.
I think it would be better to switch the 16-to-8 bit step and the colorconversion step.
First of all that keeps the colorconversion in 16bit mode, which has obvious benefits, second though, your current setup will introduce dithering twice. First during 16-to-8 bit, then the colorconversion engine will bring the colors back to 16bit (or even more), do the conversion, and introduce dithering again when supplying the 8bit data for final image.
-
There is no way to do perceptual conversion to sRGB. If the target profile is a TRC Matrix profile (such as sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB and others) the sole rendering intend available is relative colormetric as Matrix profiles have no table for perceptual RI.
see myth #21: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_21-25 (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_21-25)
Only LUT profiles, such as printer profiles (mostly with a big file size while Matrix profiles are small like 4KB) contain tables for perceptual RI (or better: they may contain a percaptual table).
It's somewhat irritating as Photoshop offers the option for all the profiles... but Matrix profile provide only colormetric RI.
This is simply FALSE!
The rendering intent is NOT a property of the profile. It is a PARAMETER supplied to the colormanagement engine which in turn can do with it whatever the heck it wants. If it is supplied 2 matrix profiles, and subsequently told to do a PERCEPTUAL match, it MAY do a totally different conversion than RELCOL.
The Photoshop engine does not currently do a different conversion for matrix profiles, so in practice it makes no difference, but whether or not actual tables are available in the profile is irrelevant.
(It's not unlike BPC. Even if you offer the Photoshop engine a printer profile with a single RELCOL LUT, it can still do BPC.)
-
Web browsers don't care about monitor profiles, ie they can't use them properly.
Screenshot of Firefox 3 with colour management enabled. Files in camera profile, converted to AdobeRGB, sRGB, ProPhotoRGB, ECI-RGB V2
[attachment=13802:screen_firefox.jpg]
Seems that at least Firefox cares about the monitor profile...
Still hoping for an answer!
Graham... I played around with the "save for web" tool (for the first time...)
what is wrong here:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture2_copy8.jpg)
... is that "preview" is set to Monitor Color". You have to set to "Document Profile".
see here (note: the screenshots are converted to sRGB)...
preview set "monitor color" / convert to sRGB: no
the resulting JPG (below) is too bright and undersaturated here ->
[attachment=13803:display.jpg]
preview set "monitor color" / convert to sRGB: yes
the resulting JPG is too bright and totally oversaturated ->
[attachment=13804:display_srgb.jpg]
preview set to "document color" / (same results with or without "convert to sRGB" activated)
the resulting JPG matches the source ->
[attachment=13805:document.jpg]
But that does not explain why your "safe as JPG"-image is still off ("jack flesher", "opgr" and me are obviously seeing the same).
Maybe you want to post screenshots of...
- your colour settings (advanced)
- your "convert to profile" setting (advanced)
- your proof settings
-
The rendering intent is NOT a property of the profile. It is a PARAMETER supplied to the colormanagement engine which in turn can do with it whatever the heck it wants.
But from where does the CMM take the information how to transform perceptual (as there is no general rule how to)? This info is stored in a dedicated table in the profile (IMHO), no?
-
But from where does the CMM take the information how to transform perceptual (as there is no general rule how to)? This info is stored in a dedicated table in the profile (IMHO), no?
There is indeed no general rule. And specifically there is no rule that stops the engine from applying a proprietary perceptual method in case it receives a perceptual conversion request for profiles lacking perceptual data.
If there is perceptual data available, it simply means that some software has prebuild a table by a proprietary perceptual method.
For example:
Most engines will use channelclipping for out-of-gamut colors when computing matrix profile conversions. Instead of channelclipping out-of-gamut colors, an engine could provide a different method of mapping all out-of-gamut colors to maintain their Hue. You still get normal in-gamut color behavior, but you get different out-of-gamut behavior.
Or an engine could compress all corners of a source matrix to fit the destination matrix. This way you would be able to judge the integrity of your source data within your monitorspace during a Convert-To-Profile command. Just like the desaturate option in Photoshop. But you simply switch from RelCol to Perceptual and back.
-
There is indeed no general rule. And specifically there is no rule that stops the engine from applying a proprietary perceptual method in case it receives a perceptual conversion request for profiles lacking perceptual data.
If there is perceptual data available, it simply means that some software has prebuild a table by a proprietary perceptual method.
For example:
Most engines will use channelclipping for out-of-gamut colors when computing matrix profile conversions. Instead of channelclipping out-of-gamut colors, an engine could provide a different method of mapping all out-of-gamut colors to maintain their Hue. You still get normal in-gamut color behavior, but you get different out-of-gamut behavior.
Or an engine could compress all corners of a source matrix to fit the destination matrix. This way you would be able to judge the integrity of your source data within your monitorspace during a Convert-To-Profile command. Just like the desaturate option in Photoshop. But you simply switch from RelCol to Perceptual and back.
That might be true - thanks for that!
But which CMM actually supports perceptual RI to a matrix profile as target? Windows ICM: no. Apple CMM: no. ACE/AdobeCMM: no. I am not quite sure about Vistas WCS.
I've once tryed to edit profile tags to check the difference between perceptual and relcol when processing from Capture One (C1 always adresses the system CMM and the profile tags). It was always relcol (with matrix profiles as target). Too, when you switch in Photoshop from ACE to the system CMM (either way on Windows (ICM) or Mac) there is no difference from relcol to perceptual.
So what you say is probably correct (I guess)... but with the common tools we are working with it does not work. At least I couldn't do any perceptual conversion to a matrix profile (as target) by now on different systems with different CMMs (that's maybe not a proof but at least an indication to me...).
-
thomas
as far as i know there is not a smart CMM that will produce a perceptual rendering from colrmetric data if no perceptual data is present. The general trend at the moment is smart profile dumb engine. The main differences between engines are the interpolation methods used when processing data.
opgr
if they are any i could you enlighten me.
thanks
-
I think it would be better to switch the 16-to-8 bit step and the colorconversion step.
First of all that keeps the colorconversion in 16bit mode, which has obvious benefits, second though, your current setup will introduce dithering twice. First during 16-to-8 bit, then the colorconversion engine will bring the colors back to 16bit (or even more), do the conversion, and introduce dithering again when supplying the 8bit data for final image.
In principle yes, in practice, no perceptible differences.
But how do you know the colour conversion engine brings the colours back to 16 bit?
-
as far as i know there is not a smart CMM that will produce a perceptual rendering from colrmetric data if no perceptual data is present. The general trend at the moment is smart profile dumb engine. The main differences between engines are the interpolation methods used when processing data.
okay, thanks!
So the article of Chromix ("CM Myth #21") is maybe not correct with regard to the cause but correct regarding the result in the real world: there is no perceptual RI when converting to a matrix profile as for today (with Windows, Apple and Adobe CMMs).
Well, at least at color.org one can download a table based sRGB profile (that much as to the smart profiles...)
-
In principle yes, in practice, no perceptible differences.
But how do you know the colour conversion engine brings the colours back to 16 bit?
Because if you build a custom CMM, Photoshop ALWAYS requests a CMColor conversion (which is a 16bit definition).
In addition, if you want to implement accurate color-conversions down to the precision offered by Photoshop, you even have to use more than 16bit precision under some circumstances.
-
thomas
as far as i know there is not a smart CMM that will produce a perceptual rendering from colrmetric data if no perceptual data is present. The general trend at the moment is smart profile dumb engine. The main differences between engines are the interpolation methods used when processing data.
opgr
if they are any i could you enlighten me.
thanks
Don't know, haven't been following the CMM arena lately. But I have build an experimental CMM in the past called Excalibur for the Mac that implemented different renderings for different intents on matrix profiles. It also allowed one to adjust the out-of-gamut rendition through a Preference panel. The discussion back then was triggered in regards to different renderings for RAW processors where this might be a relevant issue for obvious reasons.
Problem then was that Photoshop does NOT allow one to select the CMM for its display rendition, which could give inconsistent results when applying mode changes and which made a custom matrix-to-matrix conversion kind of moot...
-
In addition, if you want to implement accurate color-conversions down to the precision offered by Photoshop, you even have to use more than 16bit precision under some circumstances.
I thought Photoshop de facto operates in 15bit in colour conversions as bit number 16 is for the +/- algebraic signs in the a/b chanel of Lab...?
But maybe I am wrong and maybe that's too much off the topic here (though interessting).
-
preview set to "document color" / (same results with or without "convert to sRGB" activated)
the resulting JPG matches the source ->
That doesn't work for me!
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/doc_profile.jpg)
-
I thought Photoshop de facto operates in 15bit in colour conversions as bit number 16 is for the +/- algebraic signs in the a/b chanel of Lab...?
But maybe I am wrong and maybe that's too much off the topic here (though interessting).
When I say "16bit" here, I mean to differentiate from 8bit, regardless of whether this includes a signbit or not.
I believe the 15bit story is an entirely different issue all together and probably refers to the fact that Photoshop used to represent 16bit image data INTERNALLY as 15bit(+1) to allow for fast integer operations in 32bit registers. How much of this still holds for the latest Photoshop and current 64bit systems/processors and increasing use of graphic cards for operations, is an interesting question.
-
That doesn't work for me!
It seems increasingly plausible that your colorpreferences are inadvertently set to use the displayprofile as workingspace, which is why the preview of the original remains incorrect.
-
That doesn't work for me!
Strange!
Does ANYTHING change if you switch the preview from "monitor color" to "Mac (without CM)" to "Win (without CM)" to "document profile" ???
I still wonder very much about the desaturated "original" file on the left side.
-
It seems increasingly plausible that your colorpreferences are inadvertently set to use the displayprofile as workingspace, which is why the preview of the original remains incorrect.
Nope. here they are. (They were set to sRGB when I first posted, but now on AdobeRGB. It makes no difference to the problem I described).
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/workingspace.jpg)
-
Strange!
Does ANYTHING change if you switch the preview from "monitor color" to "Mac (without CM)" to "Win (without CM)" to "document profile" ???
I still wonder very much about the desaturated "original" file on the left side.
Yes, if I am in "save for web" window and select these different modes, the preview changes. "Doc profile" and "windows" look the same, both a bit more saturated. The monitor profile is even more saturated. The Mac profile is much brighter.
-
Maybe it's the same problem as mentioned here on the Adobe forums:
Scened-referred profiles and corrupt(?) display profile (http://forums.adobe.com/message/1541431)
-
Maybe it's the same problem as mentioned here on the Adobe forums:
Scened-referred profiles and corrupt(?) display profile (http://forums.adobe.com/message/1541431)
It doesn't appear to be the same. Toggling that control he mentions has no effect.
-
It doesn't appear to be the same. Toggling that control he mentions has no effect.
would you PM me that 791KB PSD-file (exactly as it is with no further changes)?... I am not going to sell it ;-)
-
Did you try trashing your Photoshop preferences?
Or could it be synchronized preferences (multiple CS apps)?
-
Did you try trashing your Photoshop preferences?
Or could it be synchronized preferences (multiple CS apps)?
I tried trashing the prefs, but that didn't change anything.
I don't have any other CS apps open.
-
I am suffering the same issue.
I don't think so... your webpage looks like Flash based. And Flash doesn't support CM. And for Firefox and Safari the images displayed with Flash are not "images" but "films".
-
I agree but it is not just a Flash issue, the screen grab however is a good representation of the errors also experienced in a non flash environment.
Yes. The grab is a good representation of an sRGB image displayed on a wide gamut monitor without colourmanagment (oversaturated).
I don't know where you findings come from but me personally I couldn't create problems with different formats of monitor profiles by now.
V2 and V4 and LUT as well as matrix monitor profiles work well in my applications (primary Capture One, Photoshop, Firefox3) both on Mac and Windows Vista.
For your CG241W Eizos Color Navigator is highly recommended! (note: CN creates matrix profiles only - and on Windows always in V4, on Mac always in V2).
-
CS4 and ACR (latest versions) display images accurately, Lightroom and Capture One Pro V4.8 do not - on my system.
frustrating, I see. But from the outside hard to tell the cause.
see here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=285279 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28709&view=findpost&p=285279) (edit: link updated)
That's C1 (4.8) and PS CS4 on Mac OSX10.5.7
And in comparision this is C1 (4.7) and PS CS4 on Win Vista (32bit):
[attachment=13843:win_c1_ps.jpg]
(BTW: seems that Vista's WCS is closer to Adobe's ACE than Apple CMM is to ACE)
May I ask which colour space do you use as working space (or better: output colour in C1 and Lightroom)?
-
Stupid question, but are you using Open GL in CS4? I had major CM issues with it so have totally disabled it and that solved all my color issues. This was on both my Macbook Pro and Mac Pro desktop.
-
I don't have this problem, or do i?
(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/2808/screenshota.th.jpg) (http://img190.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshota.jpg)
-
In both cases I archive the RAW to 16 bit Tiffs in Pro Photo and convert images for clients in Adobe RGB 1998, and in some cases sRGB. I have tried outputting in Adobe RGB 1998 but this has not improved matters.
thought so. Don't want to discuss it but ProPhotoRGB to me is just a theoretical colour space for experimental purpuses only with NO reference to real world devices. Though this is not your problem here I'd recommend to embed the camera profile when you use C1.
You'll lose nothing - as your camera profile works as input profile in any way in C1 and is then converted relative colormetric to ProPhoto you gain exactly the same colours but in a much bigger (and much too big) colour space. So the sole thing that happens is that you enlarge the coding space but you do not gain a single colour. The opposite: you may clip some dark tonal values as some camera profiles exceed even ProPhoto (but only at the low end: i.e. the darkest tonalvalues). Period.
As you see from my posted examples basically it's not C1 that causes the problems. C1 and Photoshop match very well on my machines (BTW since C1 V3.6 and Photoshop... I don't know... CS2?... and maybe 5 or 6 Computers incl. WinXP, Vista, Mac).
-
CS4 and ACR (latest versions) display images accurately, Lightroom and Capture One Pro V4.8 do not - on my system.
In C1 you need to set the profile in View>Proof Profile then it renders accurately
Cheers,
-
Any idea what's going on? I need to really desaturate the Phtooshop file to make it look good in the browser. What is even weirder is that I have always had very consistent results going from Photoshop to my print shop (using a large format Epson - excellent printer btw).
So I seem to need two different versions of the file. One for AdobeRGB printing, and another desaturated version for conversion to web.
Another puzzling thing is why the 'save for web' window looks like this, with very different saturations in the 2 windows:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture2_copy8.jpg)
To make things worse, this seems to happen with some images and not others. Oh btw, it doesn't help if I convert to sRGB in Photoshop outside the 'save for web' function first.
I have the same problem. I never had it when until I switched from my trusty old CRT display to a wide-spectrum NEC 3090, profiled and calibrated with SpectraView II. Working in ProPhoto RGB and 16-bit color depth, CS4 on a WinXP machine, I love the color accuracy of the display, and my HP Z3100-profiled prints are an extremely close match. However, when I convert to Jpegs (not for the web, but for several other purposes) I am shocked when I see the over-saturation. I convert the profile from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB in Photoshop, with the preview on.
I see the oversaturation of the jpegs on my monitor, but when they are projected with a digital projector the oversaturation is almost 100% gone, so I think it is a function of my monitor. Again, it never happened with my old CRT, which also was profiled quite accurately but, of course, had a much smaller gamut.
-
Stupid question, but are you using Open GL in CS4?
good hint. To encircle the problems maybe it's better to deactivate Open GL.
My OpenGL settings look like this (hope it's reasonable translated):
vertical sync: activated
bilinear interpolation: deactivated
advanced drawing: activated
submenu adv. drawing:
use for preview: activated
debugging/compositing: gamma corrected
colour adaption: activated
... on WinVista and Mac 10.5.6/10.5.7
-
I don't have this problem, or do i?
looks good
-
In the case of ACR there is no issue if I use Pro Photo. Lightroom uses a derivative of Pro Photo (Melissa RGB) and I would expect the results to be very similar but as you can see they are not. I will try your CI recommendations to see if this stops the shadows from blocking.
I thought LR actually uses the same engine as ACR (camera raw)?
-
Don't want to discuss it but ProPhotoRGB to me is just a theoretical colour space for experimental purpuses only with NO reference to real world devices.
Of course you are free to discuss it or not discuss it as you please, but having made this statement others are also free to comment. And my comment is simply that this is not correct. It isn'y an experimental working space. It is a real operational colour space being used by countless photographers producing excellent output from it. Yes, it's gamut is wider than that of our current devices (note however that the latest Epson Professional printers can reproduce parts of the colour gamut exceeding Adobe RGB '98), but that does not make it either "theoretical" or "experimental".
-
Don't want to discuss it but ProPhotoRGB to me is just a theoretical colour space for experimental purpuses only with NO reference to real world devices.
Uh huh. . .well then since your mind is made up I guess there's use explaining just how wrong you are, huh?
It is neither merely theoretical nor experimental and it's based in solid research (which if you're gonna offer an opinion you are duty bound to understand).
Look up Pro Photo RGB on Wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB_color_space) and get back to us (there's no reason to waste the time retyping what's already there).
The bottom line is that if you are capturing in raw and outputting to anything other that the web (sRGB) you are leaving color that your camera can capture and color that most inkjet prints can reproduce, on the table.
If you think that ProPhoto RGB is still only "theoretical" or "experimental" you must be living 9-10 years in the past (which is when Kodak first started working on the research).
Doooode, you really have to catch up to the new millennium, ya know? Technology (and color management) is passing you bye...
-
Pro Photo is good foresight as when it was conceived the computational horsepower was not at all there but the colour scientists saw it as a spring board covering many years if not decades of photography in a digital format for every use of archiving and transmission for multi purposing of the images captured, recorded, created, etc.
Capture has been and is using a large part of the colour space, some new monitors are able to surpass the monitor derived Adobe RGB, and many printers are reaching out farther and farther into the Pro Photo space. In the next ten years the devices will surely go farther into the images potential if recorded or passed through this space.
If anything it is the ICC who should be quicker to adopt some of the propositions that would better exploit the use of the maximum potential of capture and or images sing large parts of Pro Photo.
Like in the film days, Pro Photo is the largest tool , the most colourful view out of the lot which will be the king for a long time to come as if it were Kodachrome compared to Ektachrome or Velvia compared to Astia. Even if you use it for imagery that don't go beyond the limits of lesser spaces, it costs no more to preserve the potential in every image.
Already with some users moving up to any of the new printers like the Epson x900, Canon iPGraf, or HP Z3200 if when reprinting the image previously printed on lesser gamut printers, from ProPhoto and or traversing through fetch a remarkable difference and gain by pushing the boundaries.
Why would you want to do without?
-
Well, yes - if the only choice would be sRGB, AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB I would definitley use ProPhoto.
But outside the world of ACR/Lightroom (with impressive 4 - in words: four - colour spaces for output) there are more options.
ECI-RGB for example (the preferred prepress working space in Europe) covers all the printers as well.
Camera profiles are much bigger colour spaces than sRGB and AdobeRGB (and ECI-RGB) as well and cover the colour space of any printer easily.
In addition: camera profiles are exactly of a size (gamut) so as to represent the captured colours but at the same time not bigger.
So the real problem you are talking about is the dated design of AdobeRGB.
Schewe: as to the new millenium - maybe the future is just here and I missed it. So please name me one of the modern devices in the world that captures (or prints) a high saturated blue with a Lab value L=0 and without saturation. In my understanding Lab 0/90/-128 is black (but as always in RGB or Lab you can set it as numerical values). I know that this is not that much of a problem in most of the cases if you know how to handle it (especially if you work in RGB).
But what is the upside of working with theoretical colours? And what is the upside of throwing away coding space none will ever use (not even in the next millenium)?
If you are fine with ProPhoto that's okay. I for myself prefer camera profiles. As I don't use ACR or Lightroom I have the choice.
-
Well, yes - if the only choice would be sRGB, AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB I would definitley use ProPhoto.
But outside the world of ACR/Lightroom (with impressive 4 - in words: four - colour spaces for output) there are more options.
ECI-RGB for example (the preferred prepress working space in Europe) covers all the printers as well.
Camera profiles are much bigger colour spaces than sRGB and AdobeRGB (and ECI-RGB) as well and cover the colour space of any printer easily.
In addition: camera profiles are exactly of a size (gamut) so as to represent the captured colours but at the same time not bigger.
So the real problem you are talking about is the dated design of AdobeRGB.
Schewe: as to the new millenium - maybe the future is just here and I missed it. So please name me one of the modern devices in the world that captures (or prints) a high saturated blue with a Lab value L=0 and without saturation. In my understanding Lab 0/90/-128 is black (but as always in RGB or Lab you can set it as numerical values). I know that this not that much a problem in most of the cases if you know how to handle it (especially if you work in RGB).
But what is the upside of working with theoretical colours? And what is the upside of throwing away coding space none will ever use (not even in the next millenium)?
If you are fine with ProPhoto that's okay. I for myself prefer camera profiles. As I don't use ACR or Lightroom I have the choice.
I have a lot of images for press with Adobe RGB embedded as that was the workflow that suited the destination. Nothing against ECI RGB other than I don't really care for a 5000 K white point for RGB images.
I do not any longer save out images other than some B&W into AdobeRGB. I send out in Adobe RGB, and sometimes sRGB for magazine work as I doubt many are up to date, many not knowing what to do other than sRGB sadly.
Yet being at an art gallery the other day, the owner asked me what I thought of his poster of a large art work ( for which he sold the entire show the night of the opening for a very large amount of money), and I replied uh no there are a lot of colour shifts, and lack of potential compared to what could be done on a modern inkjet.
So you see there are many occasions where capturing and using the larger space is necessary to extract the potential of the originals fullest colour. Adobe RGB or ECI is still decent for press but why restrict input to a reduced space when the new devices will produce a larger part of the encoding space?
I do all my retouching now in ProPhoto, and export from LightRoom to whatever space I choose (unfortunately limited to RGB). The edits then in 16 bit are very useful for future use whatever output devices may exploit that extra colour. I don't think the boundaries of ProPhoto have much to do with image content or their proximity as long as they are in 16 bit. Before Joeseph Holmes created a wonderful space composing of all the colours in a film which was at the time ideal for all scanning and conservation of the total system colour, but with digital capture there have to be boundaries further out to maintain the potential.
If I didn't use LightRoom or ACR, I still would prefer to stay with ProPhoto whenever possible. Camera profiles for me can be useful for transmission , transformation of colour but I don't believe they make an ideal encoding space, nor an archiving space.
-
Camera profiles for me can be useful for transmission , transformation of colour but I don't believe they make an ideal encoding space, nor an archiving space.
what is wrong about editing or storing in a colour space that represents (more or less) exactly the colour capabilites of a certain camera (and not more!)?
Editing in Capture One and processing with the camera profile embeded to 16bitTIF... is actually a 1:1 copy of the RAW in the TIF format. I do not see any disadvantages here (well, maybe the aditional 260KB file size of the table based profile), only advantages. The camera profiles created by Phase One are edited so that they have a neutral grey axis (so further editing in Photoshop and further conversions to other colour sapces are really accurate). Really have no idea why I should convert to any other colour space at the stage of the RAW processing (when working with Capture One). If needed, I convert my file in the camera profile in Photoshop to ECI-RGB, AdobeRGB, sRGB or any RGB or CMYK printer profile - just as the purposes are. And here I have all the great tools such as gamut warning before I convert to any other colour space. Or I load my 16bit TIF in the camera profile into Chromix ColourThink and compare it to the designated printer colour space. All in all that works perfectly.
-
what is wrong about editing or storing in a colour space that represents (more or less) exactly the colour capabilites of a certain camera (and not more!)?
Editing in Capture One and processing with the camera profile embeded to 16bitTIF... is actually a 1:1 copy of the RAW in the TIF format. I do not see any disadvantages here (well, maybe the aditional 260KB file size of the table based profile), only advantages. The camera profiles created by Phase One are edited so that they have a neutral grey axis (so further editing in Photoshop and further conversions to other colour sapces are really accurate).
No. Device-based profile (camera profiles, etc) are by definition not going to have a neutral gray axis (where R=G=B values are neutral); no real-world device is perfect in this regard. That is one of the main points of editing spaces--eliminating the quirks of specific devices and converting to a more mathematically well-behaved RGB color space. The camera profiles may be close, but will not be exact in this regard. If the space you're converting to has a non-linear gamma or has been gray-neutralized, it is no longer a "camera profile" but is simply another synthetic RGB color space.
Really have no idea why I should convert to any other colour space at the stage of the RAW processing (when working with Capture One).
Because you have to convert spaces--you certainly aren't editing anything in the camera'a native linear-gamma color space. You're no worse off converting to ProPhoto than to some non-standard camera-specific space.
-
The camera profiles may be close, but will not be exact in this regard. If the space you're converting to has a non-linear gamma or has been gray-neutralized, it is no longer a "camera profile" but is simply another synthetic RGB color space.
True. The camera profiles in C1 are certainly a mixture of device behavior and the target to achieve a certain colour reproduction (or "look") and therefore do not exactly describe device behaviour. But even with its neutralized grey axis and the TRC edited they are much closer to the real device behavior than any other colour space. Especially a colour space with imaginary colours.
Because you have to convert spaces--you certainly aren't editing anything in the camera'a native linear-gamma color space
Again seen through the Adobe-glasses. Capture One does not convert to the camera profile - the camera profile (as an input profile) is assigned.
-
what is wrong about editing or storing in a colour space that represents (more or less) exactly the colour capabilites of a certain camera (and not more!)?
Jonathan is quite right when he indicates that using an input profile (a camera specific profile) as a working space for editing is not a good idea...you would be better off opening them in Photoshop and converting from the camera color to ProPhoto RGB for editing.
And don't kid yourself that a tif in your "camera color space" is 1:1 with your raw file. Capture One has already processed the real camera colors into the colors of the profile the moment it processes the image. And unless the profile you are using has a linear gamma, the tif has undergone a gamma conversion as well. Your tiff out of Capture One is a far cry from the raw file bud.
But what is the upside of working with theoretical colours? And what is the upside of throwing away coding space none will ever use (not even in the next millenium)?
L*, a*, b* while it represents the human color vision system also has colors that don't appear in nature and some implementations of Lab (such as Adobe's) also has some color space boundary issues (blues) that can cause color problems in color space transforms...so, is L*, a*, b* a "theoretical color space"? They are ALL "theoretical" bud including your camera profile (which is prolly using Lab as its interchange color space).
As far as "throwing away coding space" uh...you aren't throwing anything away by using ProPhoto RGB (which is the whole purpose of using a large color space" and in fact there is no inefficiency in the data distribution in a 16 bit (well, 15 bit +1 level) file in Photoshop unless you consider that the tools in Photoshop were designed for working on 8 bit images and thus can lead to crude and less refined moves in the color/tone corrections made in Photoshop. But that same downside applies to any 16 bit file regardless of the color space.
If you have some evidence (other than parroting other people's arguments) that there are real and specific problems with editing in ProPhoto RGB, bring them on. I really would love to hear them and if they are a result of the way Photoshop (or Camera Raw/Lightroom use ProPhoto RGB) I can prolly get the engineers to take a listen and go about getting it fixed in upcoming updates. Otherwise, it would be useful to contain yourself to characterizing ProPhoto RGB as just another color space, one that you don't use, and leave it at that.
:~)
-
Capture One does not convert to the camera profile - the camera profile (as an input profile) is assigned.
Seen through color-magement-complete-ignorance glasses... So what? You're converting the RAW to some flavor of RGB, not just tagging the RAW with a camera profile and sending it to the client. If you use the camera profile as the output space, then you are by definition converting to that space. And that's just stupid.
Regarding the "imaginary colors" red herring: all RGB color spaces are triangular in shape because they are defined by 3 primaries, red, green, and blue. The location of the primaries are the points of the triangle in 3-d color space. Since the range of human-viewable colors does not form not a perfect triangle, if you want to cover the majority of the range of viewable colors with a triangle, you have to move the corners of the triangle outside the viewable range to make the triangle big enough to cover most of the viewable range of colors.
Since ProPhoto is designed to cover the maximum range of viewable colors, its primaries have to fall outside the range of viewable colors. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is why ProPhoto contains more real and viewable colors than any other RGB color space in common use.
-
using an input profile (a camera specific profile) as a working space for editing is not a good idea
why? (when the grey axis is neutral)
you would be better off opening them in Photoshop and converting from the camera color to ProPhoto RGB for editing
why? what do I gain? The camera profile is already "big enough". Too, when converting to ProPhoto this is necessarily processed relcol. So the Lab values remain the same - I just change the colour space (and then have an overhead in the colour profile I will never need).
This is a profile of an Epson 11880 with Ultrachrome Ink and Innova Fiba Ultrasmooth. Not the biggest printer colour space in the world but let me take it as a reference.
[attachment=13860:csp.jpg]
The Printer profile is the wire frame.
Outside the grey shade is ProPhoto.
The coloured profile is a camera profile (in this case a Sony Camera).
Why should I convert to ProPhoto to match the printer gamut better? Or to edit colours that are higher saturated as they are already in that (huge) camera profile?
And don't kid yourself that a tif in your "camera color space" is 1:1 with your raw file.
Yes, I know. True. See my answer to Jonathan.
-
all RGB color spaces are triangular in shape because they are defined by 3 primaries, red, green, and blue.
this applies only to matrix profiles. And this is why matrix profiles must be that "big" to match certain printer profiles. With LUT profiles things change (see for example this very interessting project: http://www.colormanagement.de/index.php/re...t-medium-gamut/ (http://www.colormanagement.de/index.php/research/reference-print-medium-gamut/) )
-
Why should I convert to ProPhoto to match the printer gamut better? Or to edit colours that are higher saturated as they are already in that (huge) camera profile?
You're still translating the linear-gamma RAW RGB values to a neutral-balanced non-linear-gamma RGB color space that, despite what you call it, is NOT an actual camera profile. Why not convert to an industry-standard, wide-gamut space that is already capable of holding all capturable or printable colors from pretty much any device ever made or likely to be made anytime soon? The plot you show indicates that there are printable colors that are outside the camera profile, but within ProPhoto. You aren't gaining quality by converting to your faux camera profile, but you are losing the ability to print any printable color that falls outside your camera profile. If you convert your RAWs to ProPhoto instead, you can use those colors if you choose to.
-
You're still translating the linear-gamma RAW RGB values to a neutral-balanced non-linear-gamma RGB color space that, despite what you call it, is NOT an actual camera profile.
like it or not: all (good) camera profiles are edited in some way. To which extend is a different question. As already mentioned above, yes, the camera profiles in Capture One are not strictly device characterizing. The contrary: they have a neutral grey axis. Within this restriction they work consistent (as any profile with a neutral grey axis).
The plot you show indicates that there are printable colors that are outside the camera profile, but within ProPhoto.
neither in the camera profile nor in ProPhoto - this is just a mismatch of the white points (unfortunately not switchable in the ColorThink non pro version for gamut comparisions). The camera profile easily matches the printer profile (all printer profiles I've ever seen).
Look: in Capture One you always set any "camera profile" (in quote signs if you like) as input profile. There is a set of profiles or at least a generic profile for each camera. Of course you can create profiles by yourself if you like to. But there is no way to set none.
Povided that this is the staring point you can choose wheter you convert to any colour space on your system (all the RGB profiles and CMYK profiles as well) or to adjourn the conversion and just embed the "camera profile" in the TIF. That having said it's absolutely irrelevant whether I convert to ProPhotoRGB straight from C1 or later on in Photoshop - the results are exactly the same. The same apllies to all the other colour spaces. And the same applies to all printer colour spaces as well, of course.
I am doing it strictly like that since 2 years or maybe longer (output in camera profile and editing on layers in Photoshop) and I have never had any mismatch when I convert from the source (camera) to the printer profile. Nor did I have any odd behavior when editing the files. (well, I had a lot of user errors... but that's not the problem of the profiles). ProPhotoRGB doesn't help me not a bit (nor AdobeRGB or ECI-RGB do) - the results are basically the same, just the shape of the colour spaces is different.
-
Someone suggested that my monitor profile must be corrupt, so I made a new one but that didn't help.
Any other ideas?
-
Someone suggested that my monitor profile must be corrupt, so I made a new one but that didn't help.
Any other ideas?
Again: are you 100% sure that under "view"->"proof" the option "monitor rgb" is deactivated?
-
Again: are you 100% sure that under "view"->"proof" the option "monitor rgb" is deactivated?
Yes.
-
Yes.
and no hidden alpha chanel in the file? and the original file is profiled (in AdobeRGB or sRGB or whatever)? Colour Sync shows up the right monitor profile and Photoshop as well?
Trash Photoshop and re-install it.
-
and no hidden alpha chanel in the file? and the original file is profiled (in AdobeRGB or sRGB or whatever)? Colour Sync shows up the right monitor profile and Photoshop as well?
Trash Photoshop and re-install it.
Yes to all the above. I had similar issues with CS3 so I rate reinstallation as extremely unlikely to fix the problem. If it were something so easy I wouldn't be posting it here
-
I had similar issues with CS3 so I rate reinstallation as extremely unlikely to fix the problem.
So trash your OSX and reinstall it :-)
If everything is parameterized correctly ... it has to work.
I don't care about the "safe to web"-tool... I'd just say use "safe as". But you did and even herewith the original file in Photoshop looks wrong while the sRGB looks right. So there is definitely something wrong with Photoshops conversion to the monitor profile.
Did you install AdobeCMM recently or any colour software?
-
Did you install AdobeCMM recently or any colour software?
No, never on this machine.
-
No, never on this machine.
which calibration software do you use? what kind of profile do you store (matrix/LUT, V2/V4)
-
which calibration software do you use? what kind of profile do you store (matrix/LUT, V2/V4)
I'm using a standard colorsync profile created via the OS. Does this help?
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/monitorprofile.jpg)
-
I'm using a standard colorsync profile created via the OS. Does this help?
the profile created with the internal software shouldn't make problems. nevertheless, if you like, you could post the icc-file and I'll see if I may find something.
-
You can download the icc file here: http://www.mediafire.com/?tmcoenmvjlj (http://www.mediafire.com/?tmcoenmvjlj)
-
I'm using a standard colorsync profile created via the OS. Does this help?
You mean the stock Mac OSX profile? If so, that is a generic profile and very likely your issue. You need to properly calibrate your monitor using a tool like the Gretag or Spyder and associated software or you'll never get accurate color.
-
nothing noticeable - try: http://tinyurl.com/q9lrbq (http://tinyurl.com/q9lrbq)
and another version: http://tinyurl.com/pqalpd (http://tinyurl.com/pqalpd)
-
You mean the stock Mac OSX profile? If so, that is a generic profile and very likely your issue. You need to properly calibrate your monitor using a tool like the Gretag or Spyder and associated software or you'll never get accurate color.
No, a custom profile.
Whatever profile I use it shouldn't cause two applications on the same monitor to render an image so differently. They should be either both right or both wrong but either way they should match.
-
nothing noticeable - try: http://tinyurl.com/q9lrbq (http://tinyurl.com/q9lrbq)
and another version: http://tinyurl.com/pqalpd (http://tinyurl.com/pqalpd)
I tried them both (restarting PS after each profile change). Still nothing new.
-
I tried them both (restarting PS after each profile change). Still nothing new.
just renamed them and syncronized file name and internal name (which were different). But Mac has no trouble with different file and internal names... so unsurprisingly it changes nothing.
I've set the profile as monitor profile here and it works as it should (weird colours here... but matching weird colours).
-
No, a custom profile.
Sorry, I am confused. What tool and software are you using to create this custom "profile" ?
-
Sorry, I am confused. What tool and software are you using to create this custom "profile" ?
'Display Calibrator' in OSX 10.5.7
-
'Display Calibrator' in OSX 10.5.7
Okie dokie... But for the record, that does not create a monitor profile, it is a calibration -- and they are different. And possibly getting at the root of your issue. If you do not have a calibrated monitor to start with, attempting to correct color issues is basically a waste of time IMO.
Best,
-
Okie dokie... But for the record, that does not create a monitor profile, it is a calibration -- and they are different. And possibly getting at the root of your issue. If you do not have a calibrated monitor to start with, attempting to correct color issues is basically a waste of time IMO.
Best,
Jack, this program creates an ICC profile. Regardless of the profile used, an image should not appear differently on the same monitor.
-
Jack, this program creates an ICC profile. Regardless of the profile used, an image should not appear differently on the same monitor.
Okay, please disregard what I wrote then -- I've never used Display Calibrator and if it generates an accurate profile that's obviously not the problem.
Best,
-
When you have the original problem-image open in Photoshop, could you check in the lower left corner of its window what colorprofile is indicated?
Could you then select "ASIGN profile" and asign (not convert to) the sRGB profile, and check whether appearance differences are similar to the appearance differences in the "Save for Web" dialog?
-
When you have the original problem-image open in Photoshop, could you check in the lower left corner of its window what colorprofile is indicated?
Could you then select "ASIGN profile" and asign (not convert to) the sRGB profile, and check whether appearance differences are similar to the appearance differences in the "Save for Web" dialog?
It's an AdobeRGB document.
If I assign a profile of sRGB it looks a lot less saturated (as expected).
-
It's an AdobeRGB document.
If I assign a profile of sRGB it looks a lot less saturated (as expected).
Okay, could you CONVERT to your display profile, and then ASSIGN the sRGB profile, and see if that equals the appearance difference you also see in SaveForWeb?
BTW. Given the quality of your photography, I strongly recommend you purchase a hardware calibrator for your screen. A small investment which will do your images the justice they deserve. "eye-balling" your monitor calibration is a no-no.
-
About firefox again:
Found this link: http://news.datacolor.eu/en/archives/2009/...our-colors.html (http://news.datacolor.eu/en/archives/2009/02/get-your-colors.html)
"the latest version of Firefox (3.x) actually does support ICC profiles, although not by default - you actually need to switch that option on first. How? You just open a new window and type “about:config” in the address bar. After hitting enter, the app will give you a warning, that changing advanced settings is only a good idea if you know what you are doing. Once you’ve confirmed, you’ll get a list of entries. Filter out the ones with the word “color” in them. At the bottom, you’ll find one called “gfx.color_management.enabled”. Simply double-click that line, and the setting in the “Value” column will change from “false” to “true”. Now quit and re-open the app. That’s it! Your Firefox now supports ICC profiles. "
-
type “about:config” (...)
it's easier with this add on: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/6891 (https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/6891)
-
Yep, my Firefox is switched on.
Wish I could fix this. I spent an hour today after shooting this, just trying to export a jpeg from Photoshop that I liked. Massive waste of time
In the end, I had to shift hue, desaturate (by -20) and apply curves, and then it was almost identical to the PS doc.
(http://moskvamodels.com/images/henessi/Image021.jpg)
-
It is really annoying when you work with Photoshop and then when you save for web you find that the colors are not matching 100% or the contrast or saturation, i had that problem before but then i solved it, not sure if i solved that with my calibration device, but at the end it works.
-
And fantastic shot, Graham!
-
Here is a really helpful website for evaluating your browser's color management issues. Maybe it will help sort things out. I suspect the issue may be the difference between your monitor profile and the sRGB profile as explained in his third example in the left-hand column, sRGB 2.2 Gamma. http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_p...Gprofiles.html# (http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#)
Cheers,
-
Graham,
could you please open this image in Photoshop.
[attachment=13920:graham_spin.jpg]
Looks okay?
Now open the image in the "safe for web"-tool.
Do NOT activate "convert to sRGB".
Set "preview" to "document profile" and toggle to "monitor colour" - what happens?
-
Set "preview" to "document profile" and toggle to "monitor colour" - what happens?
I'll show you...
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture1_copy6.jpg)
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture2_copy9.jpg)
-
I'll show you...
Okay Graham. The image is profiled with a "colour spin" profile. Colour managed the image should look like your "original" photo (i.e. it should look fine and not spinned to violet).
That the image in the left window is not colour managed shows without a doubt that Photoshop does not convert to the monitor profile.
So the real problem is not the conversion of the image or its view in the browser - the problem is the view in Photoshop.
It should look like this (on the left: image in Photoshop)...
preview set to "monitor" (without CM):
[attachment=13923:spin_pro..._monitor.jpg]
preview set to "document" (with CM):
[attachment=13924:spin_pro...document.jpg]
What happens when you safe my spinned version on the desktop, right click on the image and from the context menu "open with" ...
1. mac preview
2. color sync
looks okay or looks spinned here?
edit:
if it looks okay in the mac preview and in colorsync please switch the CMM in Photoshop's colour preferences from "ACE" to "Apple CMM" and see if Photoshop now transforms correctly ->
[attachment=13921:colpref.jpg]
-
I really appreciate the time you are spending on this!
the problem is the view in Photoshop.
I also suspect it is a Photoshop issue.
What happens when you safe my spinned version on the desktop, right click on the image and from the context menu "open with" ...
1. mac preview
2. color sync
looks okay or looks spinned here?
Both look normal.
if it looks okay in the mac preview and in colorsync please switch the CMM in Photoshop's colour preferences from "ACE" to "Apple CMM" and see if Photoshop now transforms correctly
Same problem as before.
-
Same problem as before.
Heck!
Are you running Intel Mac?
-
edit:
if it looks okay in the mac preview and in colorsync please switch the CMM in Photoshop's colour preferences from "ACE" to "Apple CMM" and see if Photoshop now transforms correctly ->
[attachment=13921:colpref.jpg]
Interesting, because the upper-right sRGB rendition in SaveForWeb still looks bleached and not warm like the original posted earlier or the properly managed spinned version.
Which suggests that Photoshop is not converting the image data for display.
For that particular stage, Photoshop is ALWAYS using its own conversion, so switching engines will likely not make a difference.
Question now becomes:
1. Is there some setting that makes Photoshop think it does not need to convert?
or
2. Is there a problem with the display profile that stops Photoshop from making the conversion?
Did you already try the ColorSync utility "Profile First Aid" function?
-
For that particular stage, Photoshop is ALWAYS using its own conversion, so switching engines will likely not make a difference.
ah, okay! Wasn't aware of that - thanks!
Is there a problem with the display profile that stops Photoshop from making the conversion?
Graham, try this profile once again.
It's set to the primary colours of your display, Gamma 2.2 and D65 (as yours but without correction curve for the video LUT).
http://tinyurl.com/rcrsce (http://tinyurl.com/rcrsce)
-
Heck!
Are you running Intel Mac?
Yes.
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro3,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.2 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 4 MB
Memory: 4 GB
Bus Speed: 800 MHz
-
Did you already try the ColorSync utility "Profile First Aid" function?
Yes, there was no problem with my monitor profile but there was a seemingly minor problem with the Adobe RGB profile but perhaps I underestimated it:
Checking 56 profiles...
~/Library/ColorSync/Profiles/Adobe RGB
Tag 'desc': Tag size is not correct.
Verify done - found 1 bad profile.
By the way, Colorsync Utility couldn't repair it.
-
Graham, try this profile once again.
It's set to the primary colours of your display, Gamma 2.2 and D65 (as yours but without correction curve for the video LUT).
http://tinyurl.com/rcrsce (http://tinyurl.com/rcrsce)
Problem still there.
-
It appears your monitor "profile" is NOT getting applied. If you look in your color synch library can you find the "profile" you created using the OS toll as you named it?
-
MacBook Pro
maybe a problem with assignment of laptop-display and external monitor?
workaround: do you agree that colours on your display aren't accurate due to missing calibration? (a real pity looking at your great images with subtile transitions, soft colour gradations a "smooth" expression).
Your monitor profile correlates roughly sRGB. So try to set the regular sRGB profile as monitor profile for the laptop and for your Asus as well. This is not accurate certainly but it isn't now either. And it should be temporarily only.
On your Asus the high saturated blues and magentas will be slightly
Does that work?
-
.
-
It appears your monitor "profile" is NOT getting applied. If you look in your color synch library can you find the "profile" you created using the OS toll as you named it?
Yes
-
Does that work?
Unfortunately still no...
-
Well, the workaround would be to select the "proofing" option and select your displayprofile as the proofing space.
Could you see if that works?
-
Well, the workaround would be to select the "proofing" option and select your displayprofile as the proofing space.
Could you see if that works?
If I proof using 'Monitor RGB', the image becomes less saturated.
-
If I proof using 'Monitor RGB', the image becomes less saturated.
Then it seems to be an issue with your *monitor profile*. And yes, this is the last time I will respond because I know I'm sounding like a broken record
-
Unfortunately still no...
Photoshop definitely ignores the monitor profile. The case should be adressed to Adobe or Apple.
(actually your dual monitor display setup should be okay as Firefox and Safari are doing it right...)
If I proof using 'Monitor RGB', the image becomes less saturated.
no, not "Monitor-RGB". That means that all RGB-Data is displayed without CM (directly sent to the Monitor-RGB).
Set your Monitor Profile as Proof-Profile as you would do it with any paper profile (and set it to rel. colormetric).
Does that work? (please take my spinned image from above for all tests...)
-
Photoshop definitely ignores the monitor profile. The case should be adressed to Adobe or Apple.
(actually your dual monitor display setup should be okay as Firefox and Safari are doing it right...)
no, not "Monitor-RGB". That means that all RGB-Data is displayed without CM (directly sent to the Monitor-RGB).
Set your Monitor Profile as Proof-Profile as you would do it with any paper profile (and set it to rel. colormetric).
Does that work? (please take my spinned image from above for all tests...)
Ok, now I'm confused. This is what the proofing menu looks like:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/proofmenu.jpg)
-
Ok, now I'm confused. This is what the proofing menu looks like:
go to "custom" (headmost entry).
Device: your monitor profile (in my image it's: "CH_fuji_matt_0309")
render. int.: relative colourmetric
BPC: activate (useless here but anyway)
(viewing options at the bottom: deactivate both)
[attachment=13927:proof.jpg]
-
So the problem is still there?
-
go to "custom" (headmost entry).
Device: your monitor profile (in my image it's: "CH_fuji_matt_0309")
render. int.: relative colourmetric
BPC: activate (useless here but anyway)
(viewing options at the bottom: deactivate both)
[attachment=13927:proof.jpg]
Ok, thanks, haven't tried that before.
If I proof with my monitor profile and toggle it, I see no change in the Photoshop window.
-
Ok, thanks, haven't tried that before.
If I proof with my monitor profile and toggle it, I see no change in the Photoshop window.
Right, but this time you might try a different engine in the colorpreferences.
It seems very likely that the ACE engine has an issue with your monitor profile. We already know that the AppleCMM doesn't. I believe that the CMM selection is supported for the proofing preview...
-
Right, but this time you might try a different engine in the colorpreferences.
I tried both ACE and CMM and don't see any change in the document window when I toggle proofing.
-
I tried both ACE and CMM and don't see any change in the document window when I toggle proofing.
So the purple spinned image remains purple?????
-
I tried both ACE and CMM and don't see any change in the document window when I toggle proofing.
opgr and me are on the same path.
Please load this profile: (ColorSpin) http://tinyurl.com/q9h6oz (http://tinyurl.com/q9h6oz)
set it as proof profile but this time do not set convert "relative colormetric" but set "preserve RGB numbers" (or whatever it is called in English...)
-
So the purple spinned image remains purple?????
What if you use thomas modified monitorprofile as the proofing space?
Edit: ignore, thomas was ahead of me...
-
What if you use thomas modified monitorprofile as the proofing space?
Edit: ignore, thomas was ahead of me...
no! Try it!
I linked the spin icc profile... not my modified monitor profile. But this is worth a try!
and make a pause in the large format forum as you don't have anything you can see your large images on by now.
stay tuned here so that we can fix this *shit* today :-)
-
opgr: do you think it's worth trying to install AdobeCMM? Does PS routes the pipeline to AdobeCMM or still ACE?
-
Sorry, didn't know I was still to use the spin profiled doc. Will try again and report back...
-
ok, I opened the spin file in Photoshop and selected my monitor profile and toggled proofing on and off and there is no change - it looked normal at all times. I did this with both ACE and AMM selected in colour settings.
Then I loaded the colorspin.icc profile and toggled the proofing. Still looked normal at all times.
-
ok, I opened the spin file in Photoshop and selected my monitor profile and toggled proofing on and off and there is no change - it looked normal at all times. I did this with both ACE and AMM selected in colour settings.
so it looked purple in all modes, yes?!
Then I loaded the colorspin.icc profile and toggled the proofing. Still looked normal at all times.
so still purple?!
did you set the proof settings with the spin profile to "relative colormetric" or did you activate "preserve RGB numbers"?
-
so still purple?!
did you set the proof settings with the spin profile to "relative colormetric" or did you activate "preserve RGB numbers"?
"preserve RGB numbers" was de-selected and relative colormetric was selected.
It never looked purple once.
I was begining to think something had gone wrong with the spin file but then I opened the 'save for web' window and it was purple in the left frame.
-
It never looked purple once.
I was begining to think something had gone wrong with the spin file but then I opened the 'save for web' window and it was purple in the left frame.
what? so in Photoshop's regular image window it's looking natural and not purple???
The title of this thread is a direct hit....
-
what? so in Photoshop's regular image window it's looking natural and not purple???
The title of this thread is a direct hit....
Exactly :S
-
Just so you can see it with your own eyes:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture1_copy7.jpg)
-
Just so you can see it with your own eyes:
thanks
And it's exactly the same if you set sRGB as monitor profile (or my third modified monitor profile) for both the laptop-LCD and the external monitor?
-
thanks
And it's exactly the same if you set sRGB as monitor profile (or my third modified monitor profile) for both the laptop-LCD and the external monitor?
Yes.
And if I set the proofing setup to something like "Windows RGB" and toggle the proofing, then it does switch between purple and normal (purple with 'proof colours' ON.)
-
Yes.
okay.
Could you please make another screenshot with my third monitor profile set for both LCD and Asus - that from above (the last one) but in addition the same image opened in the Mac preview and in Safari.
(close all applications before you set the new monitor profile in ColorSync and restart them afterwards)
-
I assume you mean "AsusVW192S_modified.icc" ?
I set both monitors to this profile, then opened the spin file in Photoshop, went to 'save for web', then opened spin file in Safari and Preview:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture2_copy10.jpg)
-
I assume you mean "AsusVW192S_modified.icc" ?
I set both monitors to this profile, then opened the spin file in Photoshop, went to 'save for web', then opened spin file in Safari and Preview:
yes, that's right.
Sorry... the gamut of that "spin" profile is quite small. I still think that the image viewed in the regular Photoshop window is less saturated.
Could you do the same screenshot but not with the spinned image but with your AdobeRGB original file?
and in a second step: same procedure but with ProPhotoRGB set as monitor profile for laptop and TFT.
-
yes, that's right.
Sorry... the gamut of that "spin" profile is quite small. I still think that the image viewed in the regular Photoshop window is less saturated.
Could you do the same screenshot but not with the spinned image but with your AdobeRGB original file?
and in a second step: same procedure but with ProPhotoRGB set as monitor profile for laptop and TFT.
FIrst step:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture3_copy4.jpg)
-
Step 2, but I should point out that it looked nothing like this on screen. The images were far far less saturated, rather grey looking, in fact, except for the bottom-left image which looked normal.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture4_copy3.jpg)
-
FIrst step:
hey - we are closer now (or am I colour blind?).
The sole image that is different here is the left preview in the "safe for web" tool.
At the beginning of the thread I asked you to use the "safe as" command.
What happens if you convert your AdobeRGB image to sRGB and then "safe as" JPG and open it in Mac Preview (or Safari or both)?
edit:
Step 2, but I should point out that it looked nothing like this on screen. The images were far far less saturated, rather grey looking, in fact.
brilliant. Don't worry about saturation. For the screenshot your display profile is assigned and that's why it looks different here.
Essential is only: what matches and what matches not. And it's only the "safe for web" tool that is off (only on the left side) while the rest is on a par.
So: there is a bug with the "safe for web" tool, okay.
BUT: you can work with my third Monitor Profile as this seems to work - at least in a way that you can work in Photoshop and convert to sRGB and get the same in the web (actually you could use the "safe for web" tool as well but you should ignore the left image and compare the regular Photoshop window with the output of the Safe for web" tool on the right side).
-
What happens if you convert your AdobeRGB image to sRGB and then "safe as" JPG and open it in Mac Preview (or Safari or both)?
I think we did this at the start so we're going round in circles
It produces a more saturated sRGB file than what we see in Photoshop. It's like Photoshop is using a different sRGB profile to the rest of the world (and I think I said that in the first page already )
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/srgbtest.jpg)
-
I think we did this at the start so we're going round in circles
please convert again to sRGB but switch the CMM to Apple CMM before (you can set it directly in the "convert to" dialogue).
did you set my modified (3) monitor profile?
-
Which Photoshop version do you use?
-
Can you send me a TIFF or larger JPEG shot from your computer without "Save for web"? So i will check what is the problem excatly, i used to have this problem before but i fixed it, i was using CS2 but then upgraded to CS4 and no problem at all with any, even using LR or DPP or Aperture or FlexColor, all giving me accurate correct color [if correct WB and exposure ofcourse] and all matching my prints and also same on my internet browsers.
-
I'm getting there... takes time
-
Ok, I ran 4 tests and I have a hunch I might know the answer, so I'll test that in a minute.
Anyway, the results.
My regular profile, CMM:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture1regprofilecmm.jpg)
My regular profile, ACE:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture1regprofileace.jpg)
Your modified profile, CMM:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture1modprofilecmm.jpg)
Your modified profile, ACE:
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/picture1modprofileace.jpg)
As you can see, Photoshop is now behaving as expected, displaying the sRGB file the same way as other programs. So what changed? I'm about to test for a hunch... fingers crossed.
-
fingers crossed.
indeed! looks good!
My idea was that your Photoshop colour manages with a generic monitor profile though the monitor profile set in ColorSync shows up correctly in the list. But the "ProPhoto-Test" shows that it adresses ProPhotoRGB as monitor profile here.
well, I'm curious...
-
And I can reproduce the problem:
:D:D:D:D
All I changed was the profile of my Macbook monitor profile back to it's own profile, and I am back to the old problem (keeping my external monitor on my regular profile).
My Macbook screen died recently, so I never use it any more and that's why I have the external monitor. Keeping it on the same profile as my external monitor is no problem. I'm guessing that this problem started happening around the same time that I switched to an external monitor!
So what's going on? Is either the OS or Photoshop getting confused between profiles?
-
Oh, and I would never have worked this out without you. Thank you so much. If you're ever in Tallinn the beer is on me
-
This seems like a serious bug from either the OS or Photoshop.
-
so here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=286136 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34843&view=findpost&p=286136)
you went back to two different monitor profiles???
anyway - have fun!
-
so here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=286136 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34843&view=findpost&p=286136)
you went back to two different monitor profiles???
anyway - have fun!
Yes, I reverted back to my normal setup after doing your Prophoto RGB test on both monitors. Using the right profile for each monitor should work!
-
Yes, I reverted back to my normal setup after doing your Prophoto RGB test on both monitors. Using the right profile for each monitor should work!
should but does not!
Don't change the conditions while testing. Change them afterwards for further tests :-)
Good that it's solved now!