JPG and TIFF colors in Bridge CS5 way off, but fine in Photoshop
Sep 1, 2010 9:22 PM
-
-
-
I know how you feel Yammer. I have given you all the info you've requested, true?
Oh, and I am using Spyder3Elite to calibrate. Just received that yesterday. I had been using Spyder2 up until then.
-This is the problem, I have found posts on all kinds of forums on the internet regarding this issue, and everyone of them end the same way....no one has a clue how to fix the issue.If Adobe tech took control of my system for several hours and still couldn't figure it out, there obviously is something that is stumping us all. I'm still waiting to hear back from the engineers @ Adobe support which they estimated would take 3-4 biz days. -Today is day 4.
| -
-
conniez68 wrote:
But how does that explain the images doing the same thing on completely separate
computer and monitor, and even on CS3 on the other machine.
I have been vaguely following this, and from my experience when you use two different computer setups and you get the same thing, it usually means your are getting what you are supposed to. This would either mean you are expecting something that is not "the normal workflow", the images are corrupted, or there is some software that is changing how Bridge works. Using someone else's setup that works would help narrow the problem down.
Can you take a few images on a flash drive and put on some somebody else's machine, or get a few images that work well from somebody else and put on your machine and see if you get the same results? You may be making the same mistakes each time you do what you are doing.
| -
-
-
I will try to remain calm and leave my temper-tantrum for offline. My intent in giving so many details is in hope that something will be a red flag to someone, even as it seems completely unrelated to the issue.
Connie,
not meant as an offence, but I guess you are irritating a lot people by throwing more or less useless information on us - aside that you already hijacked this thread - but the important information is missing.
I believe you are on the totally wrong track and even when you claim this already:
I suspected a bad monitor profile, as did the adobe tech to which we quickly ruled out. Not just by recalibrating, but by using every profile possible. And tonight, my last ditch effort...I brought in another monitor (different manufacturer, and a non wide-gamut) and again...Dracula resides within my Adobe software.
... I guess you "only" messed up your colormanagement.,
You may be making the same mistakes each time you do what you are doing.
I agree to Curt here...
F.e. after changing the monitor profile for a test, you need to restart CS to see the changes.
But how does that explain the images doing the same thing on completely separate computer and monitor, and even on CS3 on the other machine
Because you use the same wrong settings on both ?
As Yammer stated, it looks like the same effect we get, when we are posting images in aRGB colorspace and watch it with a non-colormanaged webbrowser.
Or, when applying a large profile to a monitor which can't display this large range...
First I thought that your images are in a wider gammut colorspace and being desaturated, because viewed in a smaller one. But it seems the other way round, thought.
For getting a startpoint I downloaded one of the screenshots you provided - I found it is untagged, so my next thought was, you save all your images untagged.
But I remember you had the problem even with RAW, so this couldn't be the point, at least not to that extend.
Next I applied the wide-gamut colorspace on two non wide-gamut systems, and I got this with a tagged sRGB (same with aRGB and ProPhoto, those just look even more desaturated):
from left to right: CS5 - preview in a non colormanaged filemanger, like explorer (this is how it should look like) - Bridge
Guess this is similar to what you get...?
When proofing with the monitorprofile (wide-gamut) in PS, I get (how it was to expect) this:
As said: if tagged or not only plays a minor role here - with sRGB images you shouldn't see much difference, but with images in aRGB and ProPhoto, the tagged versions are brighter, but all images appear desaturated - to which extend depends how large the difference between monitor and image profile is:
Resume: your system is acting like you have a sRGB only monitor with a wide-gamut color profile attached to it.
This explains (at least) that you see the same effect even when you connect a non wide-gamut monitor to your computer (and don't change the monitor profile, as you should do)
Before you try the next steps, please report what you get when doing a proof with the monitor profile in PS. If it does not change a thing, do a proof with other profiles... and report which shows what you expect.
Since we lack information if / which output profile you attach to your images and for making it 100% save, do that with an older image, which was processed before you have this problem or even better download some tagged sRGBs from internet - there are lots on f.e. Flickr.
If the monitor profile is the issue, even those appear desaturated.
To see what really is going wrong on your system(s) and to set it up right, we need to get it back to a default state - means the whole chain from the OS, to the apps and images.
The OS by using a default monitor profile (sRGB), the below settings for PS and since the processed images (JPG, PSD, TIFF) might be messed up also already, when they have been edited with wrong settings, we only can rely to NEFs.
After you set your system back to the default settings, you should copy some NEFs (without xmp sidecars if they exists) to a new folder, which will generate new previews in Bridge.
If no luck at all, set the colorspace in the OS to sRGB anyway - as said above we need to have reliable parameters to start with for further trouble shooting.
Also make sure PS settings are as follows:
- color settings: should be "preserve embedded profiles" and workspace as you like (sRGB, aRGB or ProPhoto, but not set to a monitor profile - when using a monitor profile here, do the proof again after setting it to sRGB or aRGB and a restart of PS)
- when saving your images, you better tag them with a color profile
Also report the following:
- which colorspace you apply to the images when you run them through ACR (at the bottom)?
- what is the colorspace you save your images with?
- what is the color modus you have set the monitor to (you can run the U2410 in aRGB or sRGB modus; I know because I tested it some weeks ago) ?
- related to the former question: when you calibrated the monitor, did you do it for the right modus?
I mean, you didn't calibrate it in aRGB and use this (or even a larger profile) as monitor profile and use the monitor in sRGB modus, don't you?
Unlikely, shouldn't give this strong effects, but you never know....
| -
-
-
-
-
-
Curt,
I took a look at the link and although my ACR was setup differently (different version...no check boxes etc).... resetting to default (zeroed values) did make the image look better. I had noticed earlier that the exposure and brightness values seemed higher than before. Anyway, resetting for one did not correct for all images but it got me to thinking about things and settings I may have messed around with.
Bottom Line:
I went to Bridge > Edit > Camera Raw Preferences and deselected 'Apply auto tone adjustments' - which I had selected incorrectly assuming it was 'color' only.
additionally, as the link had addressed the issue of defaults being specific to each camera, I deselect the 'Make defaults specific to camera serial number'
Walla - All fixed!
See what happens when you mess with things you don't understand!
Thank you very VERY much for your assistance. Greatly appreciated!
Larry
| -
Hey everyone, this is my first post
sorry for the length, lots of info to get across.Ok so i realise this issue is getting around a bit lately and i personally have been experiencing it for months but have basically ignored it since i use a plethora of other programs in my workflow including bridge, aperture, lightroom, DXO, capture one, and phocus.
There are a few components to this issue, for the quick fix head to the bottom of this mammoth post:
1.RAW images displaying as flat and desaturated (this is NORMAL, and to be honest, what you want because it is accurate to the actual RAW file)
2.Images of all filetypes randomly displaying as oversaturated and soft (not sharp unless at 100%)
3.I STRONGLY believe this does not have anything to do with hardware or monitor profiles etc etc this is entirely a software issue.
4.It is important that your software isn't converting images in and out of different colour spaces. ie sRGB, Adobe 1998 etc etc
what this means is most cameras are set as default colour space as sRGB, most monitor profiles are set as a variation on sRGB and most software is set to utilise the embedded profile within the image. I am not going to go through how to streamline your colour space workflow because it is different for everyone and there is so much info out there. However I dont think this is a major issue right now, nor the issue here. leave this as a last resort.
My 2c:
When you shoot RAW the camera also generates a low res jpg preview and embeds it with the RAW image. This is what you see on the back of your camera. You will ALWAYS see jpg in camera even if shooting RAW.
SOME programs utilise this embedded JPG image when previewing images, some generate their own from the RAW.
It depends on your own workflow and what you want to see, but I personally prefer to see EXACTLY what is in the file with an accurate representation so I find it very annoying when a program cannot show me what I need to see. (lets get back to this later)
The difference with RAW and JPG files is minute, but definitely noticeable when previewing and comparing side by side as <conniez68> has done.
JPG files have higher contrast, saturation and sharpening applied which gives them a little bit of 'pop'
RAW files have absolutely no effects applied at all, this sometimes makes them look flat and desaturated. The idea is YOU do it yourself.
I have had this problem of Bridge opening up images then 'flickering' or 'blinking' and the image changes completely, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
- I believe this may be Bridge applying a set of parameters and effects to the RAW image when it generates its JPG preview.
There may be some sort of bug where it applies these settings to JPG or TIF files or the already embedded JPG in a RAW file thus converting to JPG twice generating a very oversaturated and ugly preview image. However, in my experience these images will not look like this when opened with Camera Raw or photoshop.
Bridge works in several ways with regard to previewing images.
(lets work in the 'FILMSTRIP' configuration so we are all on the same page)
Firstly when opening a folder with images it has not seen before, (or the previews have been purged from the cache) it shows the images with a very low res, pixelated thumbnail. these look fine up to about 4x their designated size (which is adjustable with the slider at the bottom of the bridge window).
Next Bridge works its way through the folder image by image generating larger size previews for you to see. If you select an image specifically it will generate that preview image for you asap.
There are 2 types of preview Thumbnail, 'Quick' and 'High Quality'.
These are exactly what they sound like.
Images that have the Quick thumbnail generated will show a black or greyish border around the image.
Images with High Quality thumbnails will not have any border
Now what you would expect is that Bridge will generate quick thumbnails asap so you can see your images quickly. then work through the folder generating high quality images so you can actually see your pics properly. in theory it does this, but sometimes the cache fills up and it stops or it just gets lazy and stops.
You can right click on an image and see the option where it will either say 'generate quick thumbnail' meaning it has already generated a High Quality one.
Or it will say 'Generate a high quality thumbnail' meaning bridge has only made a quick thumbail of this image (and it will have the black border).
This blinking or flickering phenomenon is actually bridge generating its preview jpgs so you can press space bar and see your image nice and big.
If you full screen preview (spacebar) your image when it only has a Quick thumbnail generated you will experience the flickering and blinking while it converts to the High Quality image. sometimes this only occurs when you click to zoom to 100%.
This is also where Bridge takes any settings or adjustments it finds in the metadata from another program such as Lightroom or Camera Raw and applies them to the preview image it generates. Sometimes it takes a little while for the preview to generate, I have often waited up to 20sec for a RAW image with lots of Camera RAW adjustments.
Either way, this is where the colour sometimes is thrown off but should not be confused with the slight difference between a RAW and JPG image.
SOLVING THE PROBLEM:
There are several options in Bridge that I have found to work for the moment and have included screenshots at the bottom;
CAMERA RAW PREFERENCES:
1.save settings in camera raw database not XMP. (I just prefer to have a clean folder)
2.apply sharpening to all images. (otherwise sharpening made in Camera Raw, Lightroom etc will not be shown in bridge jpg previews)
3.Uncheck all default image settings
4.Increase Raw Cache
5.See image for the rest, pretty self explanitary.
BRIDGE PREFERENCES:
CACHE
1.CHECK keep 100% previews in cache
2.Increase the size of the cache
ADVANCED
1.CHECK generate monitor sized previews (this seems to be the major contributing factor to the weird preview issues)
NOTE: sometimes if the preview image issue is still not fixed try CHECK 'use software rendering' (restart bridge, this seems to fix preview issues a lot of the time too)
OUTPUT
1.I have consolodated my workflow to use Adobe 1998 from camera to output in all my software and displays so I like to CHECK preserve embedded colour profile.
THAT SHOULD BE IT!!
Hopefully that sorts out the problem for everyone, it seems to have fixed it for me.
| -
-
- 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
- 5 points awarded for
-
10,000+ points
-
1,001-10,000 points
-
501-1,000 points
-
5-500 points
-
