The first thing I would look at is how the suspect app deals with profiles.

Bridge,  PS, LR, Safari, FF does, IE <9 and Chrome does not show the whacked  image (embedded profile) right. As it was to expect. Same with the  untagged image. Just a reminder: you pointed Connie in another forum to Gballards website before.

We did all those tests which can be found around before, and in the Bridge Forum Connie told:

I had two different adobe support tech's take control of my system for over 2 hrs and neither could understand why or how this was happening since all of the settings, and profiles were set appropriately.

so at least they considered this as an issue as well or never have seen this kind of desaturation themself before.

Lately I believe there is no "real" problem with Connies computer.

Aside the glitches with Bridges cache, Connie was used to a sRGB system before. F.e. sRGB images processed on a non wide-gamut system look oversaturated on non managed apps and a bit desaturated with managed apps, when viewed on a wide-gamut system. Which is what she gets.

She worked for weeks with this new system, even profiled the monitor.  But I believe she still worked in the sRGB world for those weeks and everything was fine, until - after a reboot - Spyder's LUT loader (or WCS's LUT loader) started to load the calibrated profile.

At least I found both LUT loader running, when I have been remotely on her system and there was another loader installed: quickgamma.

Guess Connie installed the latter, because she didn't get any help and tried to solve the issue on her own, reading the hints and tipps in internet, installing other software - and maybe she made it worse by this.

What happend to the images she processed before she rebooted her new system, only can be guessed. She might have had the monitor set to aRGB, but using sRGB in Windows. She sometimes have saved images tagged, but with no embedded profile. She might have assigned or converted back and forth with different profiles in PS respectively by using LR and PS.All by not being aware about the consequences it has when leaving the sRGB world.

Anyway - when listening to reports user provided to us, we never can be sure they were achieved by the same system settings.  Will say, when we ask an user today to check this and that, the results reported back might not fit to those results we got yesterday, because in meantime (compared, to yesterdays configuration) they have been altered by the user and today results are different..

In other words: we never know what a user have screwed up in meantime ;-) By this our assumptions might be wrong and we might lead the user to do even worse.

Good example are those three LUT-/gammaloaders: which was active and which profile was loaded when a test was done we asked for? Under which condition images have been posted here?

The only way to be sure is by logging in and checking all settings, respectively set the system back to zero (sRGB etc. pp.) and start over. Even than we can't see the hardware settings, f.e. if the monitor was set to Standard, sRGB or aRGB mode.

But even by doing so (setting her system back to sRGB and than configured it for wide-gamut) I was (and I'm still) surprised, that my images look desaturated on her system as well.

only exhibiting true information in NON-color managed programs

what monitor profile are you using

to get this info from Photoshop:

Edit> Color Settings> Working Spaces: click on RGB and expand your choices (as in my screenshot)

then click on Monitor RGB (to highlight it) and take a screen shot (like this):

then post it here

also please post a screen shot of your Color Settings

+++++++

where I am going is that "color only looks bad in color-managed apps" is classic bad monitor profile symptom

classic case study:

www.gballard.net/windows_srgb/

PS

if you are using a wide gamut monitor, try doing the sRGB test using a standard gamut monitor (because i think the wide gamut monitor is only confusing everyone)

Sorry when sounding harsh

No apology needed for me...but for other people who may stumble across this thread because they, too, are stumped why "color desats" in some of their applications and not others:

The basic theory and troubleshooting are (in most cases) no way as complicated and/or hopeless as presented in this thread.

The OP's most recent statement that only "NON-color managed programs" display color properly points directly to a bad monitor profile (or a basic mix-up of how profiles work).

Getting the profiles in order (with a known good test image) and ruling out a bad monitor profile should take a user less than 15 minutes.

If color-managed apps like Photoshop are still not displaying proper saturation (on known good files) after the profiles are confirmed — it's going to be either how the software is misconfigured, haxied or corrupted, or bad/incompatible hardware.

But agreed, it sounds like a fresh installed Windows 7 and to exchange the video card are decisive steps to rule out the video card and install.

G,

Over the years I learned lo live with the reality that it's futile to try to help users with this particular color management issue.  Their level of frustration is so high that they ultimately become abusive to those trying to help them.  Both you and I have tried numerous times, and only succeed in cases involving an open-minded user genuinely seeking help.

As I've said many times, the more rabid the rant, the greater the probability of PEBKAC.

In this case I've followed the discussion carefully and stayed away because of two factors I would rather not touch with the proverbial ten-foot pole, namely MS Windows and a mediocre Dell wide-gamut monitor.  I would not wish either of those to an enemy.

____________

Wo Tai Lao Le

我太老了

Please note EDIT in my last post:

Connie definitely has a monitor profile problem or the wrong Color Conversion Engine selected

let me say it like this

(assuming your mac is displaying properly and both windows and mac photoshop color settings match)

USE THE EMBEDDED PROFILE, do not convert

open the full-rez whackedrgb.jpg I linked you to earlier on your mac photoshop monitor

then open it on your windows photoshop monitor

if the windows monitor doesn't match your mac monitor (for all practical purposes): your windows photoshop is using a bad monitor profile

+++++++

if you want a second opinion, simply

on the mac, drag the whacked rgb file into an open safari window

on the windows, do the same thing

and compare

you should see the same results the photoshops are giving you

+++++++

this is not an adobe problem, adobe is only bringing the problem to your attention (like all the other color-managed apps you are using)

why adobe employees can't tell you this outright is a mystery unless they suspect something else is going on and they are investigating it

Connie is on an iMAC now. If I'm not wrong, iMAC has its  own display  which is sRGB only. I'm not sure about that, but if so, its  no wonder  she has her "colors back"

Set color management in PS to OFF load one of the desaturated image, a PSD (not JPEG yet)

Say "discard the profile" if CS complains (appears only when "ask when opening" is checked)

Asssign a large profile, starting by aRGB via ProPhoto and last Wide-Gamut. Let me know which comes closes to what you expect to see, if any.

ablichter

I actually read through your latest post several times despite your disrespectful tone (so I could try and understand what on Earth you are talking about).

You are probably a nice person, but you really have your theories mixed up....

Good day (and good luck).

Ablichter,

Nahdem ich Ihre Nachrichten sorgfältig gelesen habe, kann ich nur das, was ich vorher geschrieben habe, nochmals wiederholen:

Over the years I learned lo live with the reality that it's futile to try to help users with this particular color management issue.  Their level of frustration is so high that they ultimately become abusive to those trying to help them.  Both you and I have tried numerous times, and only succeed in cases involving an open-minded user genuinely seeking help.

 

As I've said many times, the more rabid the rant, the greater the probability of PEBKAC.

 

In this case I've followed the discussion carefully and stayed away because of two factors I would rather not touch with the proverbial ten-foot pole, namely MS Windows and a mediocre Dell wide-gamut monitor.  I would not wish either of those to an enemy.

Ich bedaure, nicht weiter behilflich sein zu können.

____________

Wo Tai Lao Le

我太老了

Hey, now it seems like it will get real fun here.

MAC are cosmetics 

MAC-addresses are what you pointing to and always said in combination, not just MAC.

A MAC, a "Media Access Controll" is the control over a/the media, either the TV, radio or DVD player. And in my house in my hands only. AKA remote controll.

And a Mac is nice design

Übrigens finde ich es gemein unanständig von Ihnen, daß Sie gerade hier die Webseite von Herrn Ballard beleidigend kritisieren.

Crappy "google translate" ;-) - gemein unanständig does not exist in german.

some is "gemein" = cowardly, rude

or some is unanständig which is morelikly: dirty (I had two showers today - can't be me) indecent or again rude - depends to the context.

I mean some can be dirty and rude - no question about hat ...

Better would have been "ungemein unanständig" = extremly (...dirty,rude, bitchy etc pp) but even this is not used. In german one of this is absolutely enough to offense one...

"sehr gemein", "ausgesprochen gemein", "sehr unanständig", "ausgesprochen unanständig"</german lesson>

Even when my english is worth than yours, our both english is not  that bad (i hope), that native english speakers wouldn't understand it.

If you want to tell me something which is not for the ears of the public, please use PM. But I have to say I'm not keen about talk in the background. Just for the records.

In respect to all others here we should stick to english, so they don't need to go through google translate and get even bader results.

This was not an offensive critique. It was authentic critique, in this case "unknown", but as it seems it was a critique directly pointed to the author of the site.

A websites content is only as good as it is readable. Dramatically changing font colors and sizes from one paragraph to the other is not good for the eyes nore for the understanding of the content.

I feel like giving up easily on this - no appetite to browse this site if I didn't urgently need to or forced to so. The content was valuable for me years ago already and new would be so without a doubt, but that's a different ballroom. I talked about the layout.

I didn't insinuate that it was done for creating page impressions only. Not yet. But any linking helps to go up in googles ranking, right?

No problem - I do that in Flickr, I do with my screenshots in here. Any of my screenshot in here is a link to my webserver, but not to one of my websites which counts in a ranking (on all three I don't have advertisers, if this is of interest)

Hat denn Ihne die Möglichkeit gar nicht eingefallen, daß Sie sich in diesem Forum eigentlich mit deren Besitzer unterhalten?

Yes, it came to my mind that the owner of the website could be "Gator Soup" the first time I saw "Gator" pointing to it. But I discarded the idea because I might would have expect more of the author of this site in here and in any other forum.

Is it allowed to say I'm even more disappointed now? Without getting bashed for it?  I believe it is.

If this is information is right. I just listen to rumors and react to it. Maybe I shouldn't.

Disappointment is not only a matter of expectation some have just out of the blue, but often a matter of impressions and hope some one or things/cirmustances stir up.

Wuah - I wonder if that is to understand...

Haben Sie vielleicht Ihre eigene, bessere Webseite anzubieten?

You can say "Du" to me ;-) With the formal "Sie" I really felling old. I mean real old. This might offend me.

No, I don't have to offer an own or even better website - at least none with text content.

Come one. Critics don't have to make things they criticize on their own and better. We have critiques about PS and Bridge, MS and MACs (except seperatists, they only have critiques about things they don't know about, don't run, own, use and feelings they don't feel) does this mean we have to code our own software?

There are sites which offer blogs and layouts which are easy of use.  There is software which creates nicely formated html code  within a click and which can be uses on personal website on own  webserver free of charge .

I just wished I ever would have expressed this before direct on his website, if there is the chance to do, not sure. Haven't been there for a while. But its never to late, right?

Anyway. Users in here shoud relax a bit, don't take themself to serious and shouldn't take this as it is a million dollar business.

But I partially understand Connie's reaction - she feels totally left alone by Adobe and maybe judged as an idiot by some in here.

And now please let us stop talking about others. I would rather like to be in a dialog with others (as long I'm not being told check "this" and go "there" all the time) than in dialogs about them.

Thanks.

Connie,

Interesting problem.  I'm sorry you've had so much trouble.  I also have a Spyder 2 Pro that I used on a Dell 2405FPW, a couple years ago under Windows XP and recently under Windows 7.  I also use Photoshop and Bridge (often using the Adobe RGB color space) but didn't experience any problems such as yours.

I recently got a wide gamut Dell U3011 and hooked it up before uninstalling or trying to disable the Spyder's profile change that occurs every time Windows is booted.  I had gone to TFT Central and installed the Adobe RGB profile they created for a Dell U3011, and on the next boot the Spyder software spit out an error message about the profile having too much information.  (I have since uninstalled the Spyder software.)

Perhaps that doesn't tell you much, but if it turns out that your issue is related to the Spyder calibration, the video card, an incompatibility between the video card and the Spyder software, with Windows and the Spyder, etc., or some other non Photoshop problem, you owe Adobe a big apology.

Please update us all when you have more info.

I am having the same problem.  Everything was fine until I upgraded to a wide gamut monitor today (Dell U2711).  Just to add to Connie's comments, I have a ATI video card, so this is not Nvidia specific.  Also, this is not isolated to Adobe products.  Using IrfanView, I can duplicate the colour shift/desaturation by unchecking the "enable color management" box.

Left is unmanaged, and right is managed.  They're two rendering of the same file by Irfan with color managed check and uncheck.

When Bridge is open, thumbnails appear as they do in the left image, then within 2 seconds change to how they appear in the right image.

Any ideas?  Or is this just how a wide gamut monitor intreprets the colour?  Some of the pix looks quite green ... thanks.

Edited:  Did more testing.  Firefox looks the same as Bridge (CS4) as in greener and less saturated, while IE8 looked more yellow and saturated.  This is definitely not Adobe specific, but has more to do with managed/unmanaged color profile.  Strangely, on my old monitors (Viewsonic VP2130 and Dell 2407), IE8 and Bridge/IrfanView didn't show a noticible difference.

I have been embedding color profile for many years, and using them in colour profile applications as well.  The only reason I didn't start a new thread is to help the next person who may have found Connie's post.  In my case, upgrade from the SpyderPro 2 to Spyder3 Express solve the problem partially as supposenly SpyderPro 2 may not read a wide gamut display correctly.  Now across different applications (even IE8, which does not support sRGB) the colour are consistent, however they still look washed out compare to the same setup with a non wide gamut monitor.  I'll chuck this up to wide gamut display and call it a day.

Hi Chris.  I know of the "Colour shift" when thumbnails are displayed in Bridge when Bridge first opens.  Since upgrading to Spyder3 Express, I no longer experience the colour shift.  Colour in EVERYTHING from CS4 Bridge/PS, IrfanView (with color manage on and reading sRGB profiles), FF, IE8, or even the desktop wall paper is very consistent now, but washed out (a bit).  I suppose this implies I'll have to reedit my portfolio work, as the future IE9 and current FF does support sRGB and will be the norm going forward.

Alright, one last one using the same image as before for consistency.

Spyder2 Pro (left unmanaged, right managed SRGB)

Spyder3 Express (Left managed sRGB, right unmanaged)

One last bit about Connie's dilemma.  I recall she was using the Spyder3 Elite.  I've read that the Elite needed an update to support wide gamut monitors, and the Express that I was using does not.  Her problem could be a bad profile using the Spyder3 Elite.

Johnnysks76,

Your original pics didn't show as big a difference as what Connie had.  It even looked like there may have only been mostly a brightness difference.  When you're optimizing photos of course you don't want even the small change, and since you've bought a wide gamut montior you're interested in quality.

I would guess that the standardization on sRGB years ago is the main cause of the problem.  If you're properly calibrated and color managed things should look the same on wide gamut or limited gamut monitors.  Or if you set your wide gamut monitor to do the limited gamut of sRGB you may be okay with and without color management in software.

I have my Dell set to Adobe RGB mode and I've calibrated using a Spyder 2 Pro but with the ColorEyes Display Pro software.  I do plan to upgrade to the Lacie software and X-Rite hardware kit, but I'm not sure that either my calibration method or using the Adobe RGB mode of these is causing the large shifts I see, or in the large differences between some of the thumbnails vs. the full previews in Bridge.  It looks to be a more substantial change to me, similar to what Connie showed.

Are you using the sRGB mode on your Dell?

Update:

Your last post came in after the above text.  Those pics are interesting.

Message was edited by: Chris_BC_1

Yes.  I am working in an all sRGB space, from RAW, to CS4 Bridge, PS, and the U2711.  My lab takes sRGB.  Web browsers will support sRGB at the most (if at that), and I am sure none of my clients can properly display aRGB.

Connie,

In Windows 7, could post screenshots of the 3 tabs of your Color Managment dialog box?

Perhaps with the drop down of all device profiles showing such as below?  I know you probaly can't get all of them showing at one time, but perhaps your monitor related profiles are grouped together.

Forgive me if you've already been through this exercise, but it's really not obvious how this is set up in Windows 7.  And it's apparently not at all obvious how Adobe is using whatever color profiles are available either.  I'm hoping I can learn a bit more from your ordeal so I don't repeat it.

Johnny,

Keep us posted on anything you find.  I suggest reading through the reviews at  http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/  (both the wide gamut monitors as well as the calibration tools) if you haven't already.  Their info is why I plan to go with the Lacie solution.

"gator soup",

How about giving the "convert to sRGB" mantra a rest?  Johnny is obviously already fully up to speed there and I'll bet money that Connie is as well.