And just for understanding, the Calibrated monitor colors are the accurate colors. How do I ensure that a jpeg created from camera raw will actually look like what I see in Camera Raw?
And one further note. If, instead of saving the file as a JPEG in Camera Raw, I send it to photoshop, and in photoshop I save it with the ICC file, it looks the same amount of color being off as saved in Camera raw. However, if I save it with no ICC profile, then it looks identical to what was in Camera Raw. I've been scratching my head for 2 months on this... PLEASE HELP!. (What I see in Camera raw is my goal, it looks the same as on the camera).
It depends on where you view the image. If you're using Windows XP, for instance, in general using the MS software (whether it's Windows itself or image and fax viewer) won't show you the right colors because it's not color managed. Same goes with internet explorer. In contrast, PS and CR are color-managed.
Well I looked at an image I had saved with the ICC profile, in windows image and fax viewere it had a red tint, in PS and CR it had the correct color. In windows explorer it had the correct color as well. Can you explain this if internet explorer does not use the ICC profile?
Internet Exploder for Windoze is NOT color managed. Ironically, the last version of the now-abandoned Exploder for the Mac is color managed.
Eric has already told you that
"Windows XP, for instance, in general using the MS software (whether it's Windows itself or image and fax viewer) won't show you the right colors because it's not color managed."
Windows Picture and Fax Viewer isn't colour managed, and neither is Internet Explorer. If you want to quickly look at JPEGs in their true light then you should be using a colour-managed 3rd-party image viewer, or Microsoft's Windows (Live) Photo Gallery (which runs on Vista and will run on XP SP3 with a bit of persuasion).
If there's a big difference between colour-managed and non-colour managed applications on your computer, then that points to a badly-calibrated monitor. Sometimes there is nothing you can do about this, apart from buying a new monitor. But if your monitor is half-decent, you should be able to finely adjust colour balance with the aid of a monitor calibration and profiling system.
Keith Nuttall wrote:
> If there's a big difference between colour-managed and
> non-colour-managed applications on your computer, then
> that points to a badly calibrated monitor.
Definitely not! Instead, it points to a monitor with a colour gamut which is significantly different (wider, hopefully) from sRGB---which basically is a good thing and definitely no reason to replace it.
I think you exaggerate.
Firstly, I said "big difference", by which I mean an obvious colour inbalance in all your photos. This will be down to bad calibration. Profiles can only compensate for bad calibration when using CM-aware software.
Secondly, the large-gamut monitor problem will apply to some images much more than others. If that is the case for the OP, then I agree that this needs to be taken into account, but not "instead" of checking the obvious first.
The monitor is supposed to be a large color gamut monitor. it is a HP LP3065c. (HP boasts a 92% color gamut )
My color profile from my calibration looks similar to teh ICC file for the monitor so I feel it is correctly calibrated.
So now I know from everyones comments:
1) fax viewer does not have color profiles used.
2) my screen being high gamut will show a greater difference between my icc images and the non icc microsoft fax and image viewer.
So this leads to my final question. If i edit my photos for clients in adobe, save in photoshop to JPEG, what should i tell my clients to do to view these images.
Finally when they order prints will they look good (assuming my color profile is accurate with what is saved in teh JPEG?)
I think you would be wise to convert the images to sRGB when creating copies to give your clients for review. My experience has been that most of the labs use sRGB as their working color space. But if you are doing the printing and require a different color space you would still have your original working files with the the required color space, and you could use them to create the final prints.
Eric Chan wrote:
>It depends on where you view the image. If you're using Windows XP, for instance, in general using the MS software (whether it's Windows itself or image and fax viewer) won't show you the right colors because it's not color managed. Same goes with internet explorer. In contrast, PS and CR are color-managed.
Eric is entirely correct. For browsing, Firefox 3.0 is color managed, but this management is not enabled by default, and you have to enable it. You can test how your browser handles color by viewing this image on the ICC Web Site
Of course, if the image is not tagged with the color space (as with many images on the web), Firefox won't know what profile to use for display. Since the matrix spaces are only about 500 bytes, there is really no good reason to include the tag.
>Of course, if the image is not tagged with the color space (as with many images on the web), Firefox won't know what profile to use for display. Since the matrix spaces are only about 500 bytes, there is really no good reason to include the tag.
Actually when you enable the secret setting in Firefox 3, it manages every image, even untagged ones and simply assumes untagged images are sRGB. This is even better than what Safari does and actually described in Microsoft and HP's original proposal for sRGB as the right thing to do.
So why is a monitor with a large color gamut create such an issue? I have narrowed my issues down to this matter. On a regular monitor the variation is not noticeable. However on the wide gamut screen everything looks very red when used without using the ICC profile.
Because a given RGB triplet will correspond to a much more saturated color on a wide gamut display, compared to a small gamut display. Example: consider the RGB triplet (0, 255, 0) in an 8-bit monitor space. This is a relatively weak green on a small gamut display, but that same triplet is a very strong green on a wide gamut display.
The problem is magnified when applications, such as all Apple applications, from the Finder through Preview and iPhoto to Aperture and Safari throw Monitor RGB to untagged sRGB image files, instead of assigning sRGB to them. The result is grotesque.
> The problem is magnified when applications, such as all Apple applications, from the Finder through Preview and iPhoto to Aperture and Safari throw Monitor RGB to untagged sRGB image files, instead of assigning sRGB to them. The result is grotesque.
I have a bit of script the executes whenever I open an image. If it's a jpg file
and is untagged, I assign it to sRGB.
This kinda works, but "placing" an untagged image gets around this little stunt.
I should just write a script that goes through a folder of images and does this
once for the set and be done with it.
I have a simpler solution. My advice and policy is to beat up the moron that hands me an untagged file with a baseball bat.
The Mac comes with a script to assign any given profile to one or more files.
> I have a simpler solution. My advice and policy is to beat up the moron that hands me an untagged file with a baseball bat.
That moron would be me :)
Earlier this year, I needed a P&S to keep in my car (for UFOs and whatever). It
works well enough but doesn't do raw. My next P&S will.
> The Mac comes with a script to assign any given profile to one or more files.
Just moved to Mac-land and haven't run across it. I do know exiftool and shell
scripting and figured that would be the easiest what to get it done.
I see some questions on here regarding output colours on Jpegs and am experiencing a problem regarding this that I need help with.
I import into Lightroom 2 and then for further editing use Photoshop CS3 running on an iMac 24. Everything looks great until I export these pictures as Jpeg either for use on the web or upload for printing with an online site, the colours are then washed out, very grey and flat. My monitor is calibrated so HELP PLEASE, this is driving me crazy. The images that I open back into PS etc look fine???
Any help or advice would be great, thanks
>Any help or advice would be great, thanks
Make sure you convert to sRGB if you are going to the web:
You need to get the icc profile for the printing company. Then in Photoshop use the proofing method (if you request icc profiles from mpix.com they provide a how to). As for the colors being wrong... photoshop uses color management. Most programs external don't ... (including internet files).
Its irritating but those are the fax.
I'd like to ask a stupid question. What's the use of editing 35mm slides, negatives and photos for friends and family in Photoshop using sRGB or Adobe RGB profiles when they can't see the images in the colors Photoshop assigned to them anyway? All use Windows P&F Viewer and they are not going to purchase 3rd party viewers that are color managed not to mention their monitors aren't profiled either. They have no interest in printing the images, just having them put on disc for viewing. I have another program, Arcsoft Photosoft 5, that after editing, looks the same in Windows Viewer. Wouldn't it be better to use the Arcsoft program for editing photos for just viewing in Windows Viewer and non profiled monitors?
>Wouldn't it be better to use the Arcsoft program for editing photos for just viewing in Windows Viewer and non profiled monitors?
No. This is a common misconception. You will get closer to the average non-calibrated non-color managed viewer ONLY by color managing yourself on a calibrated monitor and targeting sRGB outpu. When you don't color manage yourself, what others will see will actually be farther off.
to add to Jao's post, the sRGB colorspace was designed to be the average response of off-the-shelf monitors, so it's the best bet to look at least ok on non-calibrated systems.
As Jao points out, you'll be closer to the ideal average if your system is calibrated/profiled and you convert to sRGB space before posting on the Internet or sending emails. So yes, it is very much worthwhile to calibrate/profile your own system, both for display and printing.
Jao & Richard, thanks for your replies. Yes, my own system is calibrated/profiled, it's when I give family members, CD's of their images, in sRGB, that they say that the colors are very bright (saturated) while viewing them in Windows P&F Viewer and can I tone them down some. I try to explain, as best I can, about color management, calibration/profiling of the monitors to them but they aren't interested in all this, just why is their images so bright in color when using Windows P&F Viewer. I thought, just to please them on viewing, to use the Arcsoft program. Maybe keep two copies, the original edited in Photoshop and then for viewing in Windows Viewer, desaturated in Arcsoft (which I believe isn't color managed like Photoshop). Again, thanks.
>it's when I give family members, CD's of their images, in sRGB, that they say that the colors are very bright (saturated) while viewing them in Windows P&F Viewer and can I tone them down some.
That doesn't make sense at all. Usually colors are going to be less saturated in unmanaged programs because typical LCD screens are narrower in gamut than sRGB. This is what I observe in general, excepting when using my adobeRGB screen and unmanaged apps. I would start doubting my calibration if I were you. Or perhaps you have Photoshop setup incorrectly or are not correctly converting to sRGB.
I agree with Jao. If you are sending them an accurately profiled sRGB image and they are seeing it way off, then they should be seeing images from other sources (web, other people, etc.) also way off. If this is the case there is not much you can do other than try to convince them to change their monitor settings and/or calibrate/profile their monitor. Even switching to something like the Arcsoft program you mention will likely not help.
If it is only YOUR images they are having problems with then the problem likely lies on your side. One common error is to set up Photoshop preferences so that Photoshop is using the monitor profile as its working space. This is NOT correct. The working space should be sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhoto, or something of that sort.
Also, if your working space is not sRGB, you must make sure to convert to sRGB before saving, either with "Edit>Comvert to Profile" or via the "Save for Web" dialog.
You may already know these last two points but they are pretty common errors so I thought them worth mentioning.
I saw a similar occurance, but only on High dynamic range monitors. On my monitor the colors look blown out in windows program. My system is color managed and when I order prints they end up looking like photoshop.
If they have windows vista it has a color managed viewer. And if you have service pack 3 for xp you can get a color managed viewer from microsoft.
Hold the phone. I do have XP Pro with Service Pack 3 where do I get the color managed viewer from Microsoft? Forgot to say that two of the family members are using XP Home with CTR's and not LCD's and I have seen what they are talking about and they really are saturated but look fine in Photoshop on my setup. The other two family members are using Vista with LCD's and I haven't heard anything from them. Will get in touch with them to see if they have any problems. Will also ask if it's just the images I did. Don't know if there will be any differences, but the images are from slides, negatives and photos that are 10 to 70 years old and not from a digital camera. Oh, the working space I am using is sRGB. Another point I only recently went to CS3 from Elements 5 and color settings was one of the first things I looked up on line for help as they are more setting on CS3 than Elements 5. Thanks a lot for all the info.
>are using XP Home with CTR's and not LCD's and I have seen what they are talking about and they really are saturated but look fine in Photoshop on my setup.
Are other web images also oversaturated on their setup? CRTs are commonly badly adjusted and if your settings are right (which it sounds like they are) the sRGB images should look pretty close to your display on their monitors provided they have contrast and brightness right. It is normal for images to be more highly saturated on CRTs simply because they have so much better black levels and typically (if they are not too old) better gamut than LCDs. The gamut of a typical CRT is usually pretty close to sRGB.
Visted family members yesterday evening to check to see if it's the photos I did or if other images are also too saturated. The other images we looked at from web sites were also too saturated like skin tones way to red. By playing around with Brightness and Contrast and just eye balling the results, it was better, but still off. Afterwards they wanted the monitor restored to the values before we started as they were use to seeing the monitor at these setting and "after all, this is the way it came from the factory". Told them you don't have to keep it at these setting but they are set in their ways (they are in their early 60's). Anyway, as I was leaving, they ask "Can I tone the photos down some"? After all this, what else could I say but "Sure, but it will be sometime in Jan".
Also visted one of the family members that uses Vista and a LCD and these looked much better. This got me to thinking, how does the Pro's, that does this for a living, deal with this with all the millions of uncalibrated monitors. Is this a big problem for them that people complain about dull or too bright colors of their images?
>how does the Pro's, that does this for a living, deal with this with all the millions of uncalibrated monitors. Is this a big problem for them that people complain about dull or too bright colors of their images?
There is nothing you can do about it. If you target one type of monitor, you will make it far worse for all the others, so it is better to ignore it and target sRGB on your calibrated and profiled monitor. On average, the deviation will be smallest that way. I tell them that if they want to see the actual color they should calibrate. This can be done visually without any hardware and using free software to get good enough results if they are not photographers or prepress pros.
Thanks for all the help and input on this matter and consider this as an answered and closed subject. Not going to worrying about it any longer. Oh, I did find a free color managed picture viewer, Fast Picture Viewer Basic. Have only used it for about 30 minutes, but it appears to view photos like what is shown in Photoshop. (You have to go to Options and click on the color manage option). Basic only supports JPEG and, I believe, HD Photo. The Pro ($30 US) supports many more formats, PNG, TIFF and the like. Again, thanks a bunch.
Not sure if this has already meen mentioned, but there is a free Microsoft alternative to Picture & Fax Viewer: it's called Windows Live Photo Gallery. It comes supplied with Vista, and can be installed on XP, as long as the service packs are up to date, and you have the Windows Imaging Component installed. WLPG is fully colour-managed, as it can understand embedded profiles and monitor profiles.
Downloaded the free Windows Live Photo Gallery program and compared it to Fast Picture Viewer and Windows Live Photo Gallery is clearly the winner. Can't tell any differences between Photoshop and Windows LPG and they are quite a difference between Photoshop and Fast Picture Viewer. For now on I'll use Windows LPG instead of Windows Picture Viewer for viewing photos. I didn't download the Windows Imaging Component(s) as they are several different Components and didn't know which one or if all are needed and they aren't explained what each does. Seems to work ok without the Imaging Components. Keith, if these are really needed please let me know. Thanks for info.
I don't think it will work without it, so you may have already installed it without knowing.
Windows Live Photo Gallery depends on Windows Imaging Component and installs it as part of its own setup.
FastPictureViewer is fully color-managed and will read embedded profiles and also handle monitor profiles. Both features are off by default and must be turned on in the program options.
The program is based in Windows Imaging Component just like WLPG is, and uses the exact same underlying color management subsystem so it's very unlikely that any difference could be seen between those two apps, or between FPV and PS, assuming that everything is properly configured.
For whatever reason FastPictureViewer and WLPG show different pictures on my machine. WLPG is close to what PS shows while FastPictureViewer is completely off. Does anyone have an idea?
PS: Yes, I have CM turned on in FPV.
All profiles are not created equal. There's a basic version issue (ICC v4 vs. earlier), and profiles are complex things containing many fields. Lots of things can go wrong in the creation of a proper color transform from the combination of the document and device profiles, and it kind of depends on what color management code the software uses whether it can be done properly. Adobe has their own - the Adobe Color Engine - and there are others such as LittleCMS or even Microsoft's system-provided ICM that application designers may be using in their code.
It may be that the profile your calibrator/profiler has produced for your monitor (or other device) isn't compatible with every application. It happens.
This isn't intended to provide a solution or workaround, just to help explain things a bit.