Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: smilem on January 27, 2013, 01:47:11 pm
-
Hello, since everyone is switching their PC's from x32 to x64bit systems to make use of more than 4Gb Ram even if they do not use 64bit programs.
The problem is that Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM, the 32bit engine is year 2007, and there is no x64bit version ever since. I mean standalone engline.
Should I remind you that like with video codecs you must install both versions for x32bit apps and for x64bit since the older applications cant see x64 and vice versa. Not the case with Adobe their x32bit CMM cant be installed at all.
So I ask again Why Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM?
-
I get that CMM is "Color Management," but what is "ACE?"
"ACR" is "Adobe Camera Raw." I don't know what "ACE" is.
-
Adobe Color Engine - Color Mangement Module
-
Adobe Color Engine - Color Mangement Module
Thanks!
-
I mean standalone engline.
Used for what and where? All Adobe applications that utilize ACE are 64-bit anyway, it works as it should.
-
The problem is that Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM....
So I ask again Why Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM?
They didn't forget, they took a close look and decided it wasn't worth the investment since the OS CMMs are sufficient. The only notable drawback that has drawn some complaints is that Canon's iPF printing plug-in that relies upon the Adobe CMM for BPC with the RelCol intent. In that instance, one could argue that it's Canon responsibility (not Adobe's) to offer an alternative for it's customers.
-
There are many applications that support third party CMM selection, all of them or most are 32bit. If a user want to use new Photoshop 64bit or other software 64bit to be able to use more RAM he must upgrade his OS.
After upgrade the user finds out that his brand new Photoshop CS6 works wonders but his occasionally used CorelDraw X5 does not see ACE engine because he can't even install it on the OS. In my case the user dumped x64bit and uses x32bit OS, removed and sold his RAM on ebay.
When time comes and finally developers of LCMS make usable module standalone color engine for Windows perhaps then the poor user will buy new 64bit PC and use LCMS for adobe, corel, you name it.
The thing is: you must use same engine if you want color stability.
Using same engine like Microsoft that is available for x64bit systems is not a solution even if you will use it in both Photoshop and other applications. That is because you will distort the images that you get from MAC and other users using Adobe ACE, did I mention Linux.
-
After OS upgrade the user finds out that his brand new Photoshop CS6 works wonders but his occasionally used CorelDraw X5 does not see ACE engine because he can't even install it on the OS. The thing is: you must use same engine if you want color stability.
Right, so why not use the OS CMM? Almost everyone's CMM's are based on the same Heidelberg engine and have been updated with BPC for RelCol.
Using same engine like Microsoft that is available for x64bit systems is not a solution even if you will use it in both Photoshop and other applications. That is because you will distort the images that you get from MAC and other users using Adobe ACE, did I mention Linux.
Do some testing again with these modern CMMs and let us know if you're seeing meaningful differences. Of course, It's hard to consider Linux a serious platform for digital imaging. And if you're in a critical color environment (like press proofing) then you're probably using a RIP to manage color to much tighter tolerances right?
-
Unless there's a bug in the CMM, and I haven't seen one in ages, the differences between them should be tiny.
IF CorelDraw X5 does not see the ACE engine presumably because it isn't able to support that old CMM, maybe they should pay to upgrade it. As I said, Adobe's updated all their host applications to support 64-bit.
-
Unless there's a bug in the CMM, and I haven't seen one in ages, the differences between them should be tiny.
Right. Worrying about what CMM we're using was a common question more than a decade ago...
IF CorelDraw X5 does not see the ACE engine presumably because it isn't able to support that old CMM, maybe they should pay to upgrade it.
Which isn't going to happen. They're getting great results with the OS CMM and there's no practical reason to pay Adobe to update their CMM.
As I said, Adobe's updated all their host applications to support 64-bit.
But let's be clear about this. Adobe apps are 64 bit, but there isn't a standalone 64-bit CMM installer that would allow 64bit non-Adobe applications to use Adobe's CMM. 64 bit non-Adobe applications must now use another CMM like the OS CMM. And for almost all applications, that works fine.
Adobe's homegrown BPC for RelCol code was the primary reason so many developers liked to use the Adobe CMM. Now that Adobe has made their BPC for RelCol code available for anyone to use, developers have the freedom to use it as they like with whatever non-Adobe CMM they like, and essentially get the same results.
-
But let's be clear about this. Adobe apps are 64 bit, but there isn't a standalone 64-bit CMM installer that would allow 64bit non-Adobe applications to use Adobe's CMM. 64 bit non-Adobe applications must now use another CMM like the OS CMM.
And that really isn't Adobe's headache. It was nice of them to release a stand alone 32 bit CMM (for whatever purposes at the time). Now, not so much (if at all).
What would be somewhat useful is if non Adobe CMM's that don't support BPC would. But I don't think even ColorThink Pro does so I'm not holding my breath.
-
And that really isn't Adobe's headache. It was nice of them to release a stand alone 32 bit CMM (for whatever purposes at the time). Now, not so much (if at all).
Well that is very strange if it's not adobe problem. Because like I said to be sure your color is converted precisely you need to use same cmm everywhere in your workflow. How can it be done when there is not 64bit CMM?
Remeber IQueue, there are other color servers that can be used to manipulate color, most of the time they support selecting CMM. Do you know how bad is kodak CMM? So peopple would be very happy to use even IQueue to make color space conversions on dedicated PC. But why that PC needs to be outdated because someone in adobe never bothered to release same code but x64bit OS?
I also said it before and I still think that the way adobe removed "no color management" from their applications is an insult for a user that buys their products, because everyone I know uses like pirated portable CS4 to print their test targets. Why?
Because the adobe target print utility is a joke, even if you set margins like the same for all directions it still prints in top left corner no matter what, there is no orientation, no positioning nothing. What stopped adobe for porting the "photoshop print preview" dialog to a standalone utility is beyond my understanding.
-
Well that is very strange if it's not adobe problem. Because like I said to be sure your color is converted precisely you need to use same cmm everywhere in your workflow. How can it be done when there is not 64bit CMM?
How is it their problem? All their modern applications that utilize their CMM are 64-bit. When all their older applications needed a 32-bit CMM, it was there. They provided a standalone CMM, in 32-bit, pretty much out of the goodness of their heart. Why else would they need a standalone CMM when their applications that need a CMM have one built in? If you want to use their CMM, today or using Photoshop 5 circa 1998, you'll get the same results.
Remeber IQueue, there are other color servers that can be used to manipulate color, most of the time they support selecting CMM. Do you know how bad is kodak CMM?
No, I don't honestly remember there being a problem. But if so, they should have fixed it.
I also said it before and I still think that the way adobe removed "no color management" from their applications is an insult for a user that buys their products, because everyone I know uses like pirated portable CS4 to print their test targets. Why?
Why? Because short of printing targets for a profile, something the profile maker should provide, there is no reason to have a No Color Management setting in the Print dialog in Photoshop (or Lightroom, or InDesign etc).
Because the adobe target print utility is a joke, even if you set margins like the same for all directions it still prints in top left corner no matter what, there is no orientation, no positioning nothing.
Adobe had no reason to provide the utility. They did, that was nice of them. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you have to print something without color management, presumably a color target, where did that target come from? Why didn't the application that makes and needs to measure that target not provide a No CMS print path? Why is it only Photoshop has to have this provision? Answer: They don't and they shouldn't.
IF you've got some non Adobe application, running 64-bit that needs a CMM, why does it have to be Adobe's and why doesn't that company build their own (or pay Adobe for a CMM)? How is this Adobe's problem?
-
How is it their problem? All their modern applications that utilize their CMM are 64-bit. When all their older applications needed a 32-bit CMM, it was there. They provided a standalone CMM, in 32-bit, pretty much out of the goodness of their heart. Why else would they need a standalone CMM when their applications that need a CMM have one built in? If you want to use their CMM, today or using Photoshop 5 circa 1998, you'll get the same results.
Because a big company like adobe should understand that other software exist in the typical modern workflow and the only way colors can be managed right if along the way the same CMM is used. Adobe should be grateful that other software makers make an option to choose a CMM in the first place.
Keep in mind converting applications from x32bit to x64bit is a simple process, and they allready use 64bit CMM in their applications so this not needed, it simply needs to be made available as standalone. It this too much to ask?
What does adobe loose in making 64bit ACE CMM as standalone engine????????
No, I don't honestly remember there being a problem. But if so, they should have fixed it.
It's major color engine "rendering difference", so some colors come way different. Fix what?
It's like saying kodak should fix their film to match fuji or vice versa. There is a reason why choosing CMM is made available in software, if it's not available then it's not professional software.
Why? Because short of printing targets for a profile, something the profile maker should provide, there is no reason to have a No Color Management setting in the Print dialog in Photoshop (or Lightroom, or InDesign etc).
Profile maker should provide software to print the targets? Now thats new. Given the fact that every software prints differently, and adobe is closed source how can profile maker make software that prints like adobe?
Adobe had no reason to provide the utility. They did, that was nice of them. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you have to print something without color management, presumably a color target, where did that target come from? Why didn't the application that makes and needs to measure that target not provide a No CMS print path? Why is it only Photoshop has to have this provision? Answer: They don't and they shouldn't.
If I use RIP, I print with it. If I use adobe I would like to print with it, with same exact image printing controls like in print preview window, why should I use some utility that is piece of crap? Porting Print preview to separate utility was a chore for them i guess, but removing the features from all applications wasn't?
Remember the path of printing without color management was always available, adobe should not have removed it then they really should not bother about print utilities or making the feature available again.
IF you've got some non Adobe application, running 64-bit that needs a CMM, why does it have to be Adobe's and why doesn't that company build their own (or pay Adobe for a CMM)? How is this Adobe's problem?
I thought adobe was concerned that color reproduction would be right from input to output, since users need to work with other software that is possible by selecting same CMM in every program they use."
In other words, make a corel draw x5 and photoshop CS5 display same colors in 64bit WIN7 PC from a picture made on a MAC in photoshop? And I'll eat my words, that selecting same CMM is made for just being there.
-
Because a big company like adobe should understand that other software exist in the typical modern workflow and the only way colors can be managed right if along the way the same CMM is used. Adobe should be grateful that other software makers make an option to choose a CMM in the first place.
How so? How would this aid in their bottom line?
Keep in mind converting applications from x32bit to x64bit is a simple process, and they allready use 64bit CMM in their applications so this not needed, it simply needs to be made available as standalone. It this too much to ask?
If it's simple, anyone would/could do it. And yes, it's too much to ask. You want an Adobe CMM, use an Adobe product. You want PV2012, well you better be using an Adobe raw converter.
What does adobe loose in making 64bit ACE CMM as standalone engine????????
Time, money, tech support calls, documentation, uploading etc.
It's like saying kodak should fix their film to match fuji or vice versa. There is a reason why choosing CMM is made available in software, if it's not available then it's not professional software.
Once again, please read what Scott and I have written: Unless you find a bug in a CMM, the differences between them should be tiny. You know the differences between say the Apple CMM and the Adobe CMM in dE?
Profile maker should provide software to print the targets?
Yes, since that's a requirement of their method of printing to build a profile. No one else needs that.
If I use RIP, I print with it. If I use adobe I would like to print with it, with same exact image printing controls like in print preview window, why should I use some utility that is piece of crap?
Begging the question, why are you using a RIP if you expect it and say Photoshop to provide identical output?
Porting Print preview to separate utility was a chore for them i guess, but removing the features from all applications wasn't?
In terms of the loss of tech support calls, yes indeed. It was why it was removed. Few people need it, many who don't know better accessed it, then had problems. It was smart to yank it out.
I thought adobe was concerned that color reproduction would be right from input to output, since users need to work with other software that is possible by selecting same CMM in every program they use."
It should be and if not, ask the other party why they don't produce the same results.
Get over the fact that No CM is gone from Photoshop and isn't coming back. If you need to print this way, find another way. If you really want a 64-bit CMM from Adobe, solely to use in non Adobe products, take up a collection and try to get Adobe to build it, or more rationally, ask all those 3rd party companies who don't have a 64-bit Adobe CMM to pony up and pay for it. Or just continue to bitch and moan at Adobe which will solve nothing because really, it isn't their problem. They probably shouldn’t have been so generous in providing the 32-bit CMM in the first place, it only serves to spoil people into thinking they deserve freebie’s forever.
IF a 64-bit Adobe CMM is so utterly important to you, how much would you pay for it?
-
Profile maker should provide software to print the targets? Now thats new. Given the fact that every software prints differently, and adobe is closed source how can profile maker make software that prints like adobe?
Not sure you understand the OS print pipeline...but in the case of Mac, changes made by Apple in the 10.6.x time frame (not sure exactly when it hit) made it impossible for the then current Photoshop (CS4) to send intentionally unmanaged date through ColorSync. ColorSync would tag the data as "generic RGB" and targets would not be correctly printed. The only work around which worked in CS4 but not CS6 was to arbitrarily tag the data as something (Adobe RGB) and send the image from Photoshop using the Adobe RGB profile as the output profile (written about HERE (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/solving.shtml)).
BTW, your contention that different software prints differently is kinda wrong. The whole purpose of output profiles is to ensure different software CAN print the same output. Whether or not Photoshop, Profile Maker (or more recently i1 Profiler) or the Adobe Printer Utility prints the target, the result SHOULD be the same...except in recent versions of Photoshop, No Color Management has been removed because the hacks that the Photoshop engineers had to go through to actually have it work kept breaking because of OS and driver changes.
Personally, I WOULD expect the software I'm making a profile in to be able to properly output a target and not have to rely on Photoshop to do so.
And yes, Windows users kinda got screwed by the draconian changes forced on the Mac OS print pipeline. Adobe, in the attempt at keeping as much cross platform constancy, removed the No Color Management for Windows users–even though Photoshop for Windows could have kept it in.
Personally, I think it was a mistake on Adobe's part even releasing a stand alone Adobe ACE CMM...ACE is proprietary and should have been kept internal to Adobe apps. Allowing others to leverage Thomas Knoll's work (he did ACE) for free was misguided...and don't hold your breath for a 64-bit version to happen.
-
The differences between Apple CMM and Adobe ACE:
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 567
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (567 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.09
Max dE: 0.44
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.13
Best 90% - (509 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.07
Max dE: 0.28
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.10
Worst 10% - (58 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.33
Max dE: 0.44
Min dE: 0.28
StdDev dE: 0.04
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
-
The differences between Apple CMM and Adobe ACE:Worst 10% - (58 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.33
Max dE: 0.44
That's tinier than tiny!!
-
And yes, Windows users kinda got screwed by the draconian changes forced on the Mac OS print pipeline. Adobe, in the attempt at keeping as much cross platform constancy, removed the No Color Management for Windows users–even though Photoshop for Windows could have kept it in.
Not quite. Windows is also abandoning their technology that allowed "No Color Management" to work. Apple ditching Quickdraw is again a case of Apple leading the way - in bleeding edge fashion.
Adobe's senior engineer on printing: "I can't provide one [a solution for printing targets], because Apple already has, and Microsoft is, cutting off the support in the OS for passing unmanaged color data to a printer." He explained to me that it's the OS's responsibility, not the application developers, to provide a No Color Management option. If the OS doesn't allow for this, then no application (Photoshop or not even the profile making software) can provide it! Even XRite, Datacolor etc are in trouble here! Apple and Microsoft used to provide a solid solution for OS driver level target printing (Quickdraw and GDI), but since Adobe new these technologies would be depreciated they have removed the "No Color Management" option so that people won't blame Adobe when it doesn't work!
To make matters worse, the OSes are almost certain to break Null Transform tricks in the near future, so Adobe has removed that possibility as well.
All of this has to do with transitioning to 64 bit modern code. Quickdraw and GDI were 32 bit structures that had to go. This has been a painful transition for us color geeks. But let's not blame Adobe. They've actually done a great job educating Apple and Microsoft on the importance of a No Color Management path. They tell me that Apple has been listening and making improvements while Microsoft has been much tricker for them to deal with.
Anyway, I wish Adobe would release a letter to the color community explaining all of this stuff... We're all just frustrated, innocent bystanders pointing the finger at the wrong people!
-
To make matters worse, the OSes are almost certain to break Null Transform tricks in the near future, so Adobe has removed that possibility as well.
The one Adobe engineer I talked to said the Null trick should be avoided, it's not reliable any more.
But let's not blame Adobe.
Now that's no fun (for some) <g>
Based on a recent bad experience with Keynote in terms of color management, and communications with Apple, I have no faith this company gives a poop about color management any more. Just not on their radar.
-
Anyway, I wish Adobe would release a letter to the color community explaining all of this stuff... We're all just frustrated, innocent bystanders pointing the finger at the wrong people!
Considering the audience and attendees here on LuLa, it might be possible to get something like that accomplished. What we need is enough vocal and influential people to draft a letter to Apple at the very least, asking them to address the CM problems like they used to in the very old days. How long his it been since there was a ColorSync product manager? If there is someone, he/she's hiding out in a bunker in Cupertino. Maybe we have to wait for OS 11 for color management to be fixed or totally eliminated...
-
Based on a recent bad experience with Keynote in terms of color management, and communications with Apple, I have no faith this company gives a poop about color management any more. Just not on their radar.
You've lost faith in them and XRite and everyone haven't you? They've got their issues and we've got ours...
I for one, thought things would be different in 2013. I thought color management would be easy and all the heavy lifting would be under the hood and manufacturers would ship great profiles with everything and us color management consultants would move on to other things. People keep telling me "Well that's good for you right? You've still got a job." I don't think so. I want things to be smart and efficient. Nothing would make me happier than a really simple print dialog box where you choose your paper, size and hit print and it comes out perfect - without the hassle of me making custom profiles and training the end user.
Apple has done a good job trying to be a consumer advocate. I think they will continue to be but there are some hot irons in the fire right now. It's a super competitive market with lots of upheaval and change. Temporary color management problems here and there are par for the course. That said, I'd rather there not have problems just like everyone else.
-
You've lost faith in them and XRite and everyone haven't you?
Not everyone. A lot more faith in Apple. Much less in X-rite. They are a good hardware company. Software? Not so much.
-
Considering the audience and attendees here on LuLa, it might be possible to get something like that accomplished. What we need is enough vocal and influential people to draft a letter to Apple at the very least, asking them to address the CM problems like they used to in the very old days.
They could do that on a blog. Adobe has been really good about community education via their blogs. They are leading the way in that respect.
Another i3forum or something like it would be nice but I think the focus just isn't there on these topics like there used to be.
How long his it been since there was a ColorSync product manager?
Apple operates itself like a startup, constantly moving engineers around. Do they even call it ColorSync anymore anyway? I like their idea of measuring displays at the factory and hard coding a matrix of measurements into the device and having the OS generate a matrix profile on the fly when it's connected to a display. That's the kind of smart, bigger picture thinking that only someone like Apple can do...
-
Much less in X-rite. They are a good hardware company. Software? Not so much.
The world isn't perfect that's for sure. i1Profiler's UI layer is one thing but on the other hand there's some absolutely incredible color science happening under the hood that's way ahead of the competition. Can't have them both I guess. I'll go for the awesome color science under the hood and try to count my blessings.
-
i1Profiler's UI layer is one thing but on the other hand there's some absolutely incredible color science happening under the hood that's way ahead of the competition.
What competition? That's part of the problem.
And yes, there is a very smart color scientist at X-rite but that doesn't mean the software development using that technology has to be slow, buggy and designed poorly. We rarely see this at Adobe.
Can't have them both I guess.
Sure we can. Don't lower your standards. And when will we get even part of the functionality back from ProfileMaker Pro all these years after it's development was stopped in favor of i1P? Just MeasureTool! The glacial software development speed at X-rite is shocking IMHO. Their Q&E is kind of a joke too.
I like their idea of measuring displays at the factory and hard coding a matrix of measurements into the device and having the OS generate a matrix profile on the fly when it's connected to a display. That's the kind of smart, bigger picture thinking that only someone like Apple can do...
Or NEC.
-
I like their idea of measuring displays at the factory and hard coding a matrix of measurements into the device and having the OS generate a matrix profile on the fly when it's connected to a display. That's the kind of smart, bigger picture thinking that only someone like Apple can do...
Does this only work on Apple displays including built-in models like their laptops and iMac? Have you measured how accurate they are, just curious?
I've known and used that special sauce matrix building capability Apple improved upon when using theirs and SuperCal's eyeball calibrators. I'm just surprised you'ld mention this, so I'm wondering if improvements have been made since Tiger OS where I first noticed Apple's improvement building proper color transform matrix profiles pulling EDID Rom chip data off any display when building a default profile.
-
Does this only work on Apple displays including built-in models like their laptops and iMac?
None of the above. I think Scott is referring to the very old ColorSync displays (I think that's what there were called) which at the time did an auto update of the calibration so to speak, based on time the display was on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_ColorSync/AppleVision_750_Display
-
From what's been discussed about Apple's not allowing "No Color Management" settings from being turned on for custom profiling using a color target, I can only suspect several reasons seeing what little demand for answers except from audiences at LuLa and other sites.
1. The public is accepting a close enough screen to print color match utilizing the OS's CM and/or canned printer profiles reducing the complexity and expense of custom profiling going by all the online complaints that arise when it doesn't work or no one can understand how to use it correctly (i.e."My print's are too dark"). How many of those do we see online? The numbers are ridiculous.
2. Reduce tech support burdens when this stuff doesn't work as intended because of...(see #1 especially "My prints are too dark".)
3. Reduce bad press online associated with blaming Apple vs Adobe vs xxx printer driver manufacturer.
4. Reduce the amount of hesitation in buying by the general public of said products due to...(see #3 and the results of information overload).
I mean if Apple didn't give a crap about color management why would they provide so many tools in the OS including a color managed browser, Colorsync Utility and DigitalColor Meter which I use its Lab readouts for checking X-rite CC chart in DNG Profile Editor when creating custom camera profiles. Pretty handy. No one seems to bother to use it though and end up creating complaint topics online griping about why DNG PE only shows linear sensor data readouts.
Yeah, Apple sucks at caring about color management.
-
I mean if Apple didn't give a crap about color management why would they provide so many tools in the OS including a color managed browser, Colorsync Utility and DigitalColor Meter which I use its Lab readouts for checking X-rite CC chart in DNG Profile Editor when creating custom camera profiles. Pretty handy. No one seems to bother to use it though and end up creating complaint topics online griping about why DNG PE only shows linear sensor data readouts.
Yeah, Apple sucks at caring about color management.
First off, Safari isn't all that hot when it comes to color management. It's better than some browsers but far from ideal. How it (and the OS) treat untagged data is simply stupid. It was far superior in OS9 when it assumed sRGB (or one could even tell it what to assume).
I can probably count the number or people who use the DigitalColor Meter and it's been around so long, let's give credit to the people at Apple who provided it years and years ago.
The ColorSync utility is pretty buggy, and again, it's been around a long time and needs an update.
Speaking of OS9 and profiles, remember how easy it was to install em? Drop them over the system folder and the OS would put them where they belong. Windows is far superior to OS X, right click: Install Profile.
Did Apple give a crap about color management? Yes, in a big way, about 5-7 years ago. Do they now? I don't see any proof. Look at the color management (or lack thereof) on iPhone and iPad.
-
First off, Safari isn't all that hot when it comes to color management.
I don't have any complaints nor do I see any by and large except by those who worry about controlling how their image gallery will be seen by potential customers on their wide gamut uncalibrated/non-profiled displays in non-color managed browsers. The web isn't the best place to build a wide audience and demand for one's work.
Speaking of OS9 and profiles, remember how easy it was to install em? Drop them over the system folder and the OS would put them where they belong. Windows is far superior to OS X, right click: Install Profile.
Yeah, I miss that, but then I also don't miss the extension conflict issues and finally got used to Linux based GUI directory where I can have Safari, Bridge and Photoshop open while I tunnel down from Mac HD>Library>Colorsync>Profiles folder and just drop a profile in and have it immediately appear in Photoshop's menu system without a hitch or relaunch. Go back to the open folder and trash it with none of the open apps choking.
Did Apple give a crap about color management? Yes, in a big way, about 5-7 years ago. Do they now? I don't see any proof. Look at the color management (or lack thereof) on iPhone and iPad.
I don't see anything broke for them to fix except the complaints posted by color management purists and consultants which are such a small audience. And seeing from my own experience in the field the lack of demand for those kind of services in my neck of the woods and by broadcast TV and considering the migration of information exchange away from print to the web, from what I saw of my sRGB images on an iPad and iPod, I don't see the expense and complexity are justified.
Want to match to a Pantone color? No one gives a shit. They're too busy to notice seeing they're bombarded with content overload on a daily basis with the web, TV and what little time they have left for print.
It's been over ten years for this technology to develop and at least it's a lot better than it used to be with off the shelf devices in my experience so I think good enough color match will suffice for right now until device manufacturers get a broader audience who care about color and complain about it. I'm suspecting Apple thinks the less the general public notice who drive up their sales, the less resources they see they have to devote to making it perfect.
-
And something else I found yesterday on my Mac when I was doing a search entering the term "Raw". What pops up? A slew of ICC linear encoded Colorsync profiles of almost every camera brand you can imagine installed by my cheapy ass $50 Epson NX330 "All In One" printer for Epson's Easy Photo Print software.
I located my specific camera profile and copied it to the desktop and installed it in the appropriate directory and then assigned the profile in Photoshop which made the image way too bright and yellowish.
Where did Epson get these camera specific ICC profiles from? Who built them? What target did they use? Epson seems to think the Mac OS is going to use them or allow Epson's software to play nice with Apple's color managed display/printer driver pipeline.
I did a profile comparison of my EpRaw Pentax K100D camera profile in Colorsync Utility and its 3D model is as big as AdobeRGB only with a 1.0 gamma.
-
I don't have any complaints nor do I see any by and large except by those who worry about controlling how their image gallery will be seen by potential customers on their wide gamut uncalibrated/non-profiled displays in non-color managed browsers. The web isn't the best place to build a wide audience and demand for one's work.
Safari assumes all untagged documents are in your display color space. That's just stupid! You (or others) upload sRGB images, untagged, and this behavior ensures that what you and everyone else see's doesn't match. In the old days, whatever browser we had from Apple (maybe early Safari, can't recall) assumed untagged data was in sRGB. I'd prefer to tell the browser or OS what to assume as we can in Photoshop, but assuming sRGB in this context makes far more sense then assuming it is in your display profile!
FireFox assumes sRGB, at least it seems to as it perfectly matches the sRGB document tested in Photoshop.
I don't see anything broke for them to fix except the complaints posted by color management purists and consultants which are such a small audience.
You mean the people who understand the problems with their software as I just illustrated?
Want to match to a Pantone color? No one gives a shit.
It's always interesting hearing people speak for everyone else. Just speak for yourself.
It's been over ten years for this technology to develop and at least it's a lot better than it used to be
Two steps forwards, a good step back. It isn't like people are not complaining about color issues on the web...
with off the shelf devices in my experience so I think good enough color match will suffice for right now until device manufacturers get a broader audience who care about color and complain about it.
The hardware has progressed. The software, not so much.
I'm suspecting Apple thinks the less the general public notice who drive up their sales, the less resources they see they have to devote to making it perfect.
IOW, ignorance is bliss?
-
I did a profile comparison of my EpRaw Pentax K100D camera profile in Colorsync Utility and its 3D model is as big as AdobeRGB only with a 1.0 gamma.
Expect that too is broken so to speak (it doesn't map the gamut correctly if that matters to you). Apple isn't alone. Another reason ColorThink (Pro or otherwise) is worth it's weight in gold. It actually shows you the gamut mapping in a useful way.
What more buggy CS fun? Start playing with Quartz filters. What a mess in that app (not that those filters ever amounted to anything useful).
-
So you don't know anything about these Epson ICC camera profiles and how they were created? Why would Epson bother making camera profiles?
Doesn't that indicate to you that these device manufacturers believe color management is a useful technology to go to that kind of trouble?
-
So you don't know anything about these Epson ICC camera profiles and how they were created? Why would Epson bother making camera profiles?
Are you addressing this question to me? Cause I haven't a bloody clue how they managed to find their way on your machine, how could I? I don't have them. I don't even have a lot of faith in ICC camera profiles.
Epson at one time did make digital cameras.
Doesn't that indicate to you that these device manufacturers believe color management is a useful technology to go to that kind of trouble?
Not in the least, based upon the assumption that they went through any trouble.
-
Are you addressing this question to me? Cause I haven't a bloody clue how they managed to find their way on your machine, how could I? I don't have them. I don't even have a lot of faith in ICC camera profiles.
Epson at one time did make digital cameras.
Not in the least, based upon the assumption that they went through any trouble.
Trouble in regards that they've included every camera manufacturer's model. They don't even include Epson camera models.
And yeah, I was directing this question at you, Andrew, the expert and published authority on color management.
But I can see you're limited in your knowledge in this matter so I'll just find the answers somewhere else.
mmh...So you have no faith in something you know nothing about, never seen and can't explain with regards to these Epson ICC camera profiles?
That's rich!
-
mmh...So you have no faith in something you know nothing about, never seen and can't explain with regards to these Epson ICC camera profiles?
Andrew has no faith in ICC profiles made for Bayer array cameras. Neither do I and neither did Bruce Fraser. And, apparently, neither does X-Rite since they took ICC camera profiling out of i1 Profiler...
As to why Andrew has no knowledge of how certain camera profiles may have been installed on YOUR system maybe because Andrew is familiar with pro level printers, not your "cheapy ass $50 Epson NX330 "All In One" printer with Epson's Easy Photo Print software". As far as I know, I've NEVER installed Epson's Easy Photo Print software on any computer and I suspect Andrew hasn't either...
But I can see you're limited in your knowledge in this matter so I'll just find the answers somewhere else.
Good idea...
-
Well said Jeff!
-
But I can see you're limited in your knowledge in this matter so I'll just find the answers somewhere else.
Yes I'd agree my knowledge of cheapy ass $50 Epson NX330 (your words) and whatever profiles were provided is zero.
mmh...So you have no faith in something you know nothing about, never seen and can't explain with regards to these Epson ICC camera profiles?
I have a fair bit of experience with ICC camera profiles dating back to the last century from just about every software option that was available to build them. I did a fair amount of work with X-rite on the creation and use of their various camera targets and the software used to build camera profiles. I've built a fair number of camera profiles in differing environments. I have zero information or experience with the profiles you are discussing but that doesn't change my opinion of ICC camera profiles one lick. I still have no faith in something I've spent years working with. And no nothing about these Epson ICC camera profiles you refer to that somehow apply to your $50 NX330. I don't think they are magical in any way that would change my mind about ICC camera profiles.
Now that you've taken us down this silly Epson ICC camera profile rabbit hole, what's your point? It had something to do with how Apple isn't focused on color management? Because that's where we were before this silly digression you've designed.
-
Now that you've taken us down this silly Epson ICC camera profile rabbit hole, what's your point? It had something to do with how Apple isn't focused on color management? Because that's where we were before this silly digression you've designed.
Since you've dismissed my points as silly, I don't see any point talking to rabbits. You do seem to spend a lot of energy arguing over the same color management minutia over and over going on years now never adding any new information.
I decided to ask you something off your normal scripted answers that I do believe related to Apple's color management implementation seeing Epson would include ICC camera profiles. If Epson didn't think Apple would allow or support its color managed video system to integrate with these profiles, I wouldn't think Epson would have gone to the trouble of building and including them. That's my point.
If you plan on redirecting what I just said into some other dismissive "I don't think this is important to address" argument, don't bother answering. I'm no longer interested. Capiche?
-
I'm no longer interested.
Promise?
-
Promise?
Promise!
-
Since you've dismissed my points as silly, I don't see any point talking to rabbits. You do seem to spend a lot of energy arguing over the same color management minutia over and over going on years now never adding any new information.
Based on the last few comments, I'm not the only one dismissing your comments which don't appear to have anything to do with the discussion (ether about an Adobe CMM or the state of color management).
I decided to ask you something off your normal scripted answers that I do believe related to Apple's color management implementation seeing Epson would include ICC camera profiles.
Start a new thread. Something like "I have this cheapo printer, it installed a pile of cameras profiles" (then ask the question). FWIW, the only question you asked are either obvious or you'll have to ask Epson:
Where did Epson get these camera specific ICC profiles from? Who built them? What target did they use?
Answer: Why does it matter where Epson got them or even if they made them? Equally unimportant is who built them (although if you spent a little time with your beloved ColorSync utility, you could gain some possibly useful info. Do you know how to read the tags?). What target did they use is equally unimportant but again, one might be able to decipher this reading the tags. But the real crux is this:
Why would Epson bother making camera profiles?
You seem to know that Epson made them from that statement and then you seem to think we should believe this has some bearing on the state of (or lack thereof) of color management and Apple. I'm not sure, as I said, you took us OT and down this rabbit hole. Did you even look at the dates some of the profiles where built? Did you think maybe you could supply the names of the cameras? Seems you're really not too interested in answers. But if you are, start a new post. Or geeze, maybe ask Epson. Would you like me to call up my friends there and ask for you?
Doesn't that indicate to you that these device manufacturers believe color management is a useful technology to go to that kind of trouble?
Not really. Those profiles could be 10 years old as far as I know. You've provided nothing useful in terms of what you have other than you got a pile of ICC camera profiles.
If Epson didn't think Apple would allow or support its color managed video system to integrate with these profiles, I wouldn't think Epson would have gone to the trouble of building and including them. That's my point.
You seem pretty sure of Epson's intent so why ask? And are you sure that these profiles are only available to people like yourself, on a Mac who buy a cheap printer? Because if your plan was to extrapolate the addition of camera profiles somehow proves Apple's commitment to color management (a stretch), I suspect your friends on Windows might think you've forgotten them. Kind of makes your assumption about Epson+Camera Profiles+Apple half baked.
If you plan on redirecting what I just said into some other dismissive "I don't think this is important to address" argument, don't bother answering. I'm no longer interested. Capiche?
I never said it wasn't important, I said it had nothing to do with the discussion here. And if anyone's been dismissive, it's you. The bit about you have no faith in something you know nothing about, is one of the sillier comments you've made in this post. Do you understand?
-
Epson built them. All 256 and they're cross platform compatible. They're copyright 2006-2009. Make of it what you wish.
I've been hearing you bad mouth Apple about their color management for years with no counter argument from anyone. And since you saw it was on topic to mention it again within this 64 bit CMM discussion, I decided to offer a counter POV by showing you something that isn't logical from a business sense why Epson would go to the trouble and expense of building 256 ICC profiles for a cheap printer. That's all.
-
I've been hearing you bad mouth Apple about their color management for years with no counter argument from anyone.
There is no legit counter argument...Apple has screwed the pooch since they enforced some pretty serious fundamental changes on both application developers and printer companies. It seriously sucks to be a developer for the Mac–regardless of whether you are doing software or hardware.
So, let's see some of Apple's recent behavior;
Although the switch from 68K to PPC is old history, it was a seriously debilitating change forced on developers...
Then the switch from OS 9.x to OS X was a massive change...
Then Apple decides to switch to Intel cpus requiring even more changes...
Then Apple reneges on their promise for 64 bit Carbon libraries requiring software switch to Xcode and Cocoa APIs...
Then Apple switches to 64 bit only processors which means OS's (10.7.x and now 10.8.x) which will run on only a fraction of the hardware Apple has sold.
Then Apple started enforcing draconian conditions just to make certain folders visible–really, you need to run Terminal to make some folders visible? That's worse than MSFT.
Apple completely changed their printing pipeline requiring new app and print driver changes as well as changes to color management applications.
Look bud, Apple makes nice hardware...OS X is nice if you aren't a pro, but it seriously sucks to be a pro Apple user these days and has for several years. In point of fact, Andrew is privy to information he can't really talk about that would further castigate Apple's handling of various applications and hardware developers...
Apple could fix all this stuff if there was any desire on their part...there is no desire. Heck there's still isn't a ColorSync product manager (the last one broke out in a sweat at the very sight of Steve Jobs in the Apple Cafe–I was there and saw the pure panic in his eyes).
Andrew tends to say what he thinks and what he thinks is based upon years and years in the biz. Yes, he sometimes gets a bit strident, but that's ok, he knows this shit pretty well. Do you?
BTW, let us know when you decide to get a real printer...something that can make real prints. Then maybe you might have some useful comments. In the meantime, when you start posting anything about real printing, I tend to roll my eyes and discount anything you say.
-
Epson built them. All 256 and they're cross platform compatible. They're copyright 2006-2009. Make of it what you wish.
Great, 4-7 year old profiles. Salient. And of course they are cross platform! Which again flies in the face of your argument they somehow support Mac CMS.
I've been hearing you bad mouth Apple about their color management for years with no counter argument from anyone.
While an exaggeration it's telling, as it appears thus far, most are in agreement with me. Why don't you ask Chris Murphy who occasionally posts here if he agrees with you. And when you're ready for an actual counter arguments, we're all ears. You said you didn't have an issue with Safari and when I pointed out that it's assumption of untagged data was silly, you of course didn't have anything to say about it. All this nonsense about Epson camera profiles doesn't make a counter POV. Now what?
since you saw it was on topic to mention it again within this 64 bit CMM discussion, I decided to offer a counter POV by showing you something that isn't logical from a business sense why Epson would go to the trouble and expense of building 256 ICC profiles for a cheap printer. That's all.
In your mind it was a counter POV. Congratulations. That so far no one has agreed with you shouldn’t affect you from continuing down (your own please) the rabbit hole, just do it elsewhere. Ideally a new post. Perhaps on another web site?
Why don't you follow your own advise: I'll just find the answers somewhere else.
-
I take it you professionals are now doing all of your professional work on Windows systems exclusively and not on the Apple platform seeing all the Mac usability complaints you've listed.
If you are doing professional work on Apple computers, are you getting less ROI over working on Windows?
-
I decided to offer a counter POV by showing you something that isn't logical from a business sense why Epson would go to the trouble and expense of building 256 ICC profiles for a cheap printer. That's all.
Let's see, the so called logic of the rabbit hole digger is that Epson presumably feels that thanks (solely) to Apple's work with color management, they provided hundreds of camera profiles. But the last one's were made in 2009? The lack of newer profiles seems to shoot holes through that silly theory. How many digital cameras have been released since 2009?
Maybe Tim can tell us what hardware or software in the last 5 years Apple has introduced that show a commitment to color management. What new product, functionality or even bug fixes? We did get the recent bugs they introduced into 10.8 alone but just what actual accomplishments that aid those using color management. Nothing on the iPad or iPhone, there's no color management there.
In just the last year plus, Apple have screwed DDC/CI in 10.8.x and 10.7.5 such some of us have to now use a USB cable to communicate to our display systems and other's can't communicate with the smart display systems at all.
My upgrade to 10.8 shows a lovely non color managed Dock except for the Finder icon.
Keynote is screwed too since 10.8, the main images are not color managed (the little thumbails are). Yet Preview does it correctly. Add just those to the list of Jeff's.
-
I take it you professionals are now doing all of your professional work on Windows systems exclusively and not on the Apple platform seeing all the Mac usability complaints you've listed.
I'm still using a 2009 MacPro Tower (running 10.6.8) which I would have upgraded last year (I upgrade every 3 years) but Apple offered nothing that was more than a tiny upgrade...no USB 3, no Thunderbolt...nothing but a retread of the existing cpus. If Apple doesn't get their shit together this year with a real hardware upgrade, I will be switching to Windows...I already run Windows 7 in Bootcamp as well as Parallels and Win 7 is decent (don't like Win 8).
-
"Adobe's senior engineer on printing: "I can't provide one [a solution for printing targets], because Apple already has, and Microsoft is, cutting off the support in the OS for passing unmanaged color data to a printer." He explained to me that it's the OS's responsibility, not the application developers, to provide a No Color Management option. If the OS doesn't allow for this, then no application (Photoshop or not even the profile making software) can provide it! Even XRite, Datacolor etc are in trouble here! Apple and Microsoft used to provide a solid solution for OS driver level target printing (Quickdraw and GDI), but since Adobe new these technologies would be depreciated they have removed the "No Color Management" option so that people won't blame Adobe when it doesn't work!"
What's confusing to me is that earlier in this thread Andrew said:
"Get over the fact that No CM is gone from Photoshop and isn't coming back. If you need to print this way, find another way."
Well, what's confusing is it seems that no matter what application you want to use to print your targets with, it won't matter because the OS will not allow it to be done properly. Given that, how does one find another way to do this? How do the printer manufacturers and paper makers deal with this? They must have the same constraints as everyone else, no?
It seems that the Adobe Color Printer Utility won't work past Mac OS 10.6.8, so that's out for anything more modern. The only solution I can see for the short term is using older operating systems and the ACPU, until someone can convince the powers that be to fix this problem. I mean, we all need good printer profile whether they're canned or custom. Hell, I still keep three old G4's around just to run my drum scanners because the best software only runs on 9.2.
-
It seems that the Adobe Color Printer Utility won't work past Mac OS 10.6.8, so that's out for anything more modern.
Runs fine for me under 10.8. And again (hopefully for the last time), the applications that build profiles and need no CMS printing should handle this. It is their requirement for output and measurement, not Adobe's.
-
Okay. Upon further research, it appears that it does work, but the default privacy settings have to be changed to allow applications downloaded from anywhere to apply, in order for the app to run. So, one part of my question answered, but what happens in future OS iterations when these data paths are blocked, as Scott (Onsight) seems to suggest will be happening?
-
...it appears that it does work, but the default privacy settings have to be changed to allow applications downloaded from anywhere to apply, in order for the app to run.
What?
-
So what "Color Management OFF" target printing methods do the printer manufacturers use to build their canned profiles? Why not use whatever they use?
-
So what "Color Management OFF" target printing methods do the printer manufacturers use to build their canned profiles? Why not use whatever they use?
On Mac, they use what Adobe provides for free or what the profile application uses (which is the same and produces the same output).
-
On Mac, they use what Adobe provides for free or what the profile application uses (which is the same and produces the same output).
So where is the problem others are having doing this on the Mac? Now I'm confused.
-
"What?"
Yes. That came off an Adobe blog regarding issues with Mac OSX 10.8 and ACPU, so I'm assuming if they're writing about it, they not only encountered it, but probably got a few complaints as well. So, we're all glad to know that ACPU works now.
-
So where is the problem others are having doing this on the Mac? Now I'm confused.
You'll have to ask them. ACPU works just fine printing untagged data with no CMS. As does i1Profiler (as it should).
-
but what happens in future OS iterations when these data paths are blocked, as Scott (Onsight) seems to suggest will be happening?
Well that remains to be seen. Hopefully dialog between Adobe, Apple and Microsoft will be better than they have been in the past, so that they can all craft an elegant solution. If not, then even the ACPU could fail.
ACPU works just fine printing untagged data with no CMS. As does i1Profiler (as it should).
ACPU doesn't work with Postscript, CMYK, or Grayscale processes. And it sometimes scales targets. So it's pretty limited - albeit to the process that most consumers use - RGB inkjet. The way things are looking ACPU may not continue to function properly even with the one RGB path it supports if the OSes change the way they have indicated they will. There are reasons why ACPU is unsupported software.
-
The way things are looking ACPU may not continue to function properly even with the one RGB path it supports if the OSes change the way they have indicated they will. There are reasons why ACPU is unsupported software.
That's one of the reasons the engineers yanked it (NCM) out of Photoshop and released ACPU because it would be easier to rev ACPU for pipeline changes than Photoshop's print pipeline. As far as I know, the engineer that wrote ACPU intends to update it when needed by OS changes. But we'll see if/when Apple or MSFT makes major changes.