Synced Images on Mobile Devices Look Totally Different

[AABBCCDDEE]

If I create a Profile with Xrite Color Checker Passport and then apply that profile to the images, some images, not all of them look different on mobile devices. On both my iPad and Android Smartphone I see those few images, it depends, in Black and White or with posterised psychedelic, sort of, colors… on what this depends I still don’t know and would like to see a solution, otherwise the vantage of the Color Checker Passport becomes useless.

Someone else experienced this too?

Any Idea?

I'm working on late 2012 iMac, OS 10.13.2

All OS and APPs are updated to the latest possible for that device.

[Per Berntsen]

Can you post one of the problem images here?

The profile you created is a camera profile (as far as I can tell, I've never used the Xrite Color Checker Passport) that determines how Lightroom should render the image, and shouldn't affect how images display on different devices.

[AABBCCDDEE]

Here are pictures of the problem...

[Per Berntsen]

Can you post the actual image?

Then I could check it on my phone and tablet (both Android).

[Just Shoot Me]

Upload the actual image file in its native format to someplace like DropBox.

Make it public and post a link to it in this thread.

[AABBCCDDEE]

Link

Included is the .nef and .xmp files and the .dcp profile.

[Just Shoot Me]

I downloaded the zip and opened in my LR then synced with mobile.

On my desktop screen the image is in color and slightly warm/red in hue. When synced with mobile it certainly isn't in B&W and all the settings are the same but it appears less warm/red. That was on my cheap tablet (B&N NOOK). On my Phone, and older LG, they look exactly the same. Again certainly not B&W.

On the LR web page they look the same.

Could be you have some Preset being applied or you accidentally clicked the B&W button on your mobile device.

[AABBCCDDEE]

I'm sure no preset have been applied.

Anyway, not all images are affected, only a few, 2 or 3 within an album.

Installing update after update some of these few images with that odd look changed back to normal, I mean, they now look the same on mobile and desktop... I think this is something between xrite and adobe.

There are cases where I need color confidance and I use the colorcheckerpasport, i.e. on artworks reproductions and portraits, but if I can't rely on it...

- Do I really need it?

- Is there any option for those color-critic jobs?

- Anyone involved in artworks reproductions and portraits; what's your solution to try to get the right colors, apart from xrite ccp?

[Per Berntsen · Accepted solution]

There is no way that a camera profile can cause this, since it is only used by Lightroom when rendering the image, and the profile is not part of, or embedded in the image as far as I know. And even if it was, no image viewer would understand that profile, or know what to do with it. So this is caused by something else.

In other words, the camera profile is only significant inside Lightroom, and doesn't do anything with exported images.

As for your question about whether the Xrite Color Checker Passport is necessary for photographing artwork - I can't really answer that - I guess it depends on the required degree of accuracy. The few times I have photographed paintings, I have have always had the original next to me when editing.

Getting the image on screen to match the original can be difficult, and I guess it has to do with our eyes and camera sensors seeing colors differently, and possibly the reflective properties of certain dyes in the paint used by artists.

Maybe D Fosse​, who does this kind of work, can offer some advice.

However, the display problem you have been experiencing is certainly no reason to stop using the Xrite Color Checker Passport.

[AABBCCDDEE]

I never had problems with exported images and the Color Checker always gave me the "right" result.

This is a problem only with synced images and just a few of them, which is more strange. This is something unpredictable and I can't figure out why. There is really nothing strange I do that I could repeat to replicate the problem... I might just ignore the syncing feature and go ahead without it, just as I did til its implementation.

I can't stop using the Color Checker: too important in my workflow.

I'll message Fosse for some advice in this regard, Thanks Per!

[D Fosse]

I suggest that you post further questions in this thread, rather than using a private message.

Absolutely. This is a public forum where everybody can benefit from a flow of information.

Anyway, Marco, I got the PM, and the short answer is that you don't use camera profiles for this. Camera profiles are used to compensate for light sources that are spectrally non-uniform.

For daylight, studio flash or tungsten I have never seen any benefit in custom profiles (although I'm sure x-rite wants you to believe that). I you believe you can improve on the Adobe Standard profile, you're welcome to try, but I stopped trying long ago. It just isn't happening.

[D Fosse]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Per+Berntsen  wrote

who does this kind of work

Indeed I do, as photographer at an art museum.

I always include a color checker in a reference shot - but what I use it for is to set endpoints and basic contrast curve, using the neutral patches. They all have standardized Lab values.

Not long ago there was a thread in the color management forum dealing with this:  https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2382676  I'll just quote a couple of the most relevant paragraphs (from my own posts), but go there for the whole story.

---

I leave the color patches alone. There's no way you will ever be able to achieve a full colorimetric match. If you ever did, the result would not be internally consistent and lose credibility. What you aim for is equivalent color. That will be accepted as "accurate" everywhere.

With continuous light sources like tungsten or flash, you'll likely get the best and most predictable results with the Adobe Standard profile. Avoid fluorescent tubes or LED if you can. Spectral distribution is highly irregular, with sharp spikes and deep troughs. If you have to use them, they require custom camera profiles to account for this.

Next, make sure your monitor is calibrated to match the print conditions. This means setting a monitor white point that is a visual match to paper white, and a monitor black point that is a visual match to max ink density for the paper. With the monitor thus calibrated, what you see is what you get. What you see on screen, is what you will see in the final print.

Now you can compensate visually for paper color and max ink. This is necessary because you are working from absolute Lab values, but these values will be modified by paper color and max ink. If you were working strictly visually from the start, this step would be redundant.

Adjust color as needed. "Accurate" is a pie in the sky, you'll never get there. Think equivalent color, and it will be accepted as accurate.

[Per Berntsen]

I'll message Fosse for some advice in this regard, Thanks Per!

You're welcome.

But for the benefit of others, I suggest that you post further questions in this thread, rather than using a private message.

D Fosse has already been notified because I mentioned him in my post, and most of us prefer responding in threads rather than by messaging.

[AABBCCDDEE]

Per, I got it. I din't know Mr Fosse was notified... Infact he answered while I was massaging him in private.

Mr. Fosse, thank you. I'm gonna read that thread.

- About light sources and Camera Profiles, what about LED Lights? Would I find any benefit with profiles?

BTW, I really don't know... I see a difference with and without the custom profile...

Anyway I don't like camera profiles provided by Adobe. In this case I still prefer the Adobe Standard Profile.

[AABBCCDDEE]

Ok, the answer about Led Lights is also in that thread, Thanks!