Colour profile experiments
Discussion
Following my earlier thread on this subject, I'm still not happy with the results.
The camera is set to sRGB 1998, and prior to (I think) installing XP SP2, I had no discernible problems with colour.
PS had always been set to sRGB1998 with no problems. But now, photos that looked right on-screen looked much paler on the internet (or in saved e-mails). In particular reds seemed affected, which is pretty important for skin tones.
So - as other applications are not colour-managed, I set PS to 'Monitor RGB - sRGB-IEC61966-2.1'.
Now, when I open a file in PS, it quite reasonably throws up this message:
I have three choices, so here are two photographs saved using each option.
1) 'Use embedded profile instread of working space':
2) Convert document's colours to the working space':
3) 'Discard the embedded profile (don't colour manage):'
And then I reset PS to sRGB1998 and saved two more:
My questions is: should I set things to whatever gives the best results in the 'Eyeball' test above, or am I missing something fundamental that will magically make everything correct at source level?
The camera is set to sRGB 1998, and prior to (I think) installing XP SP2, I had no discernible problems with colour.
PS had always been set to sRGB1998 with no problems. But now, photos that looked right on-screen looked much paler on the internet (or in saved e-mails). In particular reds seemed affected, which is pretty important for skin tones.
So - as other applications are not colour-managed, I set PS to 'Monitor RGB - sRGB-IEC61966-2.1'.
Now, when I open a file in PS, it quite reasonably throws up this message:
I have three choices, so here are two photographs saved using each option.
1) 'Use embedded profile instread of working space':
2) Convert document's colours to the working space':
3) 'Discard the embedded profile (don't colour manage):'
And then I reset PS to sRGB1998 and saved two more:
My questions is: should I set things to whatever gives the best results in the 'Eyeball' test above, or am I missing something fundamental that will magically make everything correct at source level?
correction.. according to the box you are shooting in adobe rgb which would make sense.. you just need to set your ps working space to adobe rgb.. and you will have a consistant workflow from camera to software
also suprised you don't shoot in raw.. which will give you the widest gamut and dynamic range your camera has...
>> Edited by bacchus180 on Monday 9th May 20:45
also suprised you don't shoot in raw.. which will give you the widest gamut and dynamic range your camera has...
>> Edited by bacchus180 on Monday 9th May 20:45
bacchus180 said:
you are shooting in adobe rgb which would make sense.. you just need to set your ps working space to adobe rgb.. and you will have a consistant workflow from camera to software
That's the logical answer. But when I do it that way, all my pictures come out pale when viewed in anything that isn't PS. They didn't used to, but now they do.
For me, the best of the selection above is 2) 'Convert document's colours to the working space'. (which is Monitor RGB). What do you think?
it depends what colour space you are viewing your images in after PS. saving via imageready gives you the option of using the icc profile so reserving the colour detail. when printing you will always use the profile the printer is set up to and view accordingly to make sure you are in gamut. if using a simple web browser you will lose some colour as the gamut is narrow. its funny when I save to tiffs I don't get any shift in colours at all.
simpo two said:
That's the logical answer. But when I do it that way, all my pictures come out pale when viewed in anything that isn't PS. They didn't used to, but now they do.
yup I know the problem here
most programs aren't colour managed - they assume that everything is sRGB, which is pretty much the standard. So when something comes along that isn't profiled with sRGB, it will use the numerical values for this pic as if it were sRGB. Unfortunately when you do this with Adobe RGB they come out looking undersaturated.
One thing that isn't colour managed that REALLY should be is the LCDs on the back of digital cameras. I would love to use adobe RGB but when I set my camera to it (both the d2x and 1dsII) the pictures look like sh1t. they are undersaturated and look a nasty shade of green. This makes it impossible to tune the white balance correctly. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but this seems like an awful error to me on very expensive cameras.
I always convert to sRGB as the last thing I do to the image before saving as a jpg if it's going on the web. Adobe RGB is a better working space than sRGB, and your monitor profile is exactly that - a profile, not a working space, so should not really be used as such.
It sounds to me that your monitor isn't calibrated as well as it could be, so your monitor profile is having to make a large change to the colours, hence you notice a big difference when comparing the images in Photoshop (which is colour managed) and non-colourmanaged apps.
How are you calibrating/profiling your monitor? It may be worth having another go at this.
It sounds to me that your monitor isn't calibrated as well as it could be, so your monitor profile is having to make a large change to the colours, hence you notice a big difference when comparing the images in Photoshop (which is colour managed) and non-colourmanaged apps.
How are you calibrating/profiling your monitor? It may be worth having another go at this.
If it's only happened since you installed SP2 then maybe something has happened to adobe gamma loader thingy. Mine loads at startup and calibrates my monitor.
Although from what you have written I'm not sure monitor calibration is where your problem lies. Might be worth a look though. (adobe gamma is in the control panel by the way)
Although from what you have written I'm not sure monitor calibration is where your problem lies. Might be worth a look though. (adobe gamma is in the control panel by the way)
Thanks Ed and Dobbo. I did need to reset the monitor profile - in fact, thinking about it, it happened when I put in a new GFX card as I now run two monitors.
I used Adobe Gamma both before and after the new card. I found it impossible to get both screens to match, but then as one has been used for two years and the other is almost new, I suppose that's only to be expected.
I don't think much of Adobe Gamma really - it seems rather subjective, hit and miss. If anyone has suggestions for other software I can download that will do the job better, I'll try it.
I used Adobe Gamma both before and after the new card. I found it impossible to get both screens to match, but then as one has been used for two years and the other is almost new, I suppose that's only to be expected.
I don't think much of Adobe Gamma really - it seems rather subjective, hit and miss. If anyone has suggestions for other software I can download that will do the job better, I'll try it.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff