I give up. I flat out just don’t get color management and trying to get my head around this stuff really sucks. Yes, there’s a glut of print and web based info around on the subject but it all seems to fall into one of two categories.
The first category, "Here’s everything possibly imaginable on the subject", is provided in earnest by experts actually trying to apprentice the lay person but the information tends to overwhelm hobbyists like myself rather than help. The material goes on and on and on and on as if to describe a beach grain by grain and the more of it I read the more confused I get. The second category, as I see it, comes from experts taking a stab at helping through impressing the reader on how smart they are and, as confusion goes, there isn’t a dimes difference between the two. Is there a Dr Suess or Dick And Jane version of Color Management that anyone could recommend?
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
I agree. The explanations all stink. Furthermore, they are like the proverbial medieval theologians debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Why can’t Apple bite the bullet, take the bull by the horns, etc, & make color management "Just Work" like it did in OS 9? Perhaps they are too busy designing iPods?
This is obviously the most infernally complex aspect of the software/hardware relationship, so why expect end users to mess with it? What if you tried to boot your computer, & discovered you had to learn electronics to make the necessary adjustments? How many computers would be sold?
Gary – Thanks for your comments. Isn’t it telling how very few people reply to posts like this? I can only imagine the hundreds that will read this post anxiously checking back from time to time to see if someones answer might help them too. We aren’t alone.
Ramon – Thanks, gballard.com is an excellent site and is the one I keep going back to.
I agree with Ramon, I have tried Ian Lyons, but It is a little bit too contrived (goind from PC to Mac, etc., I got lost in the shuffle, G.Ballard is pretty much to the poinrt and the easiest to understand, I came to a Point where I got a little daring and tried other combinations and printed and then returned to his method but at least it makes you understand it a little more. Reading a little more about it on other sites does not hurt, you do pick up a litlle info that is helpful here and there, but basically G.Ballar is the one.. I still dont understand it fully, but hope to as some point soon. When I first started reading about CM I got a violent headache, but sooner or later sometthing clicks.
1) The Color Management System CONVERTS the SourceSpace/File into MonitorRGB (the custom "calibrated" monitor profile) and PROOFs the color accurately on the screen
2) The Color Management System CONVERTS the SourceSpace/File into the TargetProfile/Space (the custom "calibrated" printer profile) and PROOFs the color accurately on the printed paper
Color Management is ONLY about CONVERSIONS (and knowing the file’s SourceSpace):
A SourceSpace is CONVERTED to a TargetSpace
It starts with a good monitor profile (to PROOF the color acurately on screen), and it ends with a good target profile (to PROOF the color accurately on the print)
The simple challenge (for me) is knowing when/where the Conversion takes place…
The simple challenge is knowing when/where the Conversion takes place…
I agree. Other than a bad monitor profile, 99% of all color management workflow errors I see stem from an improper (wrong color conversion engine) or double conversion (as when applied by both Photoshop and the printer).
G, thanks for joining in. I’m so exhausted, I’m about to drop right now. A few questions for you tomorrow if you don’t mind please. Sleep is my only hope at the moment.
Shhhww, feeling much better now. Okay, suppose my sister emails me a scanned photo that Id like to print. Maybe it has an embedded profile and maybe it doesnt have one.
Before I color correct the image, should I convert it to my working space, which is my GOOD SCREEN (monitor profile which I created through callibration) or attach my printer profile to it which of course is my target? Would this step be as simple as Image>Mode>Assign Profile or Image>Mode>Convert Profile or something else.
I’ll have to take your word for it and I appreciate you trying to help my understand all of this. But, given your answer, how does my monitor profile influence the outcome of all of this if it isn’t used somewhere along the way.
Say the image she emailed me has an HPscanner profile attached to it. You’re saying just color correct the image preserving this profile and then convert it to my printer space when it’s time to print it?
Do not "convert the image to your printer space". It has to be tagged with a good profile (like Adobe RGB) and look good to you, so that the printer driver knows how to convert it to the paper/ink/printer profile you specify in Print with Preview.
If you have your monitor profile set as the working space for the color settings, you are defining all images, except files that have embedded profiles, that color space.
If you receive a file that has a scanner profile, you should convert from that scanner space to a working space such as Adobe RGB, sRGB, whatever..
What you need to understand is that setting your working space, your RGB working space in the color settings, to your monitor profile, is a bad idea because a monitor color space is not linear whereas a device independent color space is such as Abobe RGB, is. We want a linear color space to edit our files in due to the simple fact that the adjustments made with Curves, Levels and the like are linear tools.
There is no need to convert to a print space if you are using the print with preview feature because a conversion is done on the fly to the printer.
Finally, a scanner color space isn’t anywhere linear and taking a file that you know is in a scanner space, stripping the profile and assigning something else_WILL NOT_ preserve the color appearance.
Color mgmt. is all about preserving the look or color of the image between conversions.
Color mgmt. is all about preserving the look or color of the image between devices via a conversion.
It’s quite a simple ideology once you understand brain surgery.
Photoshop only uses target device profiles (monitor, printer) to PROOF the SourceFile — unless we do an actual Image> Mode> Convert/Assign — Photoshop is not changing the SourceFile color space (when it PROOFs it on the monitor or on the print).
The Color Management Sysytem is Converting the SourceFile (to PROOF it) behind the scenes, "on the fly," but again, the actual SourceFile is not being changed.
And again, the simple challenge (for me) is knowing when/where the Conversion takes place…
+++++
The second part of this lesson is MysteryMeat.
MM is untagged or mistagged files.
In both cases we Image> Mode> ASSIGN (the) Profile that looks best on the calibrated monitor.
Then, Image> Mode> CONVERT to Profile (our desired working space)…
If the image does not have a profile, then assign one that you "think" should be the right color space. It’s the only thing we can do at this point in time. Sometimes there is no clear cut answer.
For example:
if you have an image and the reds are way overly saturated when you assign the Adobe RGB profile to it, I’d say that that profile is not the correct profile to describe the image. More like sRGB or Apple RGB or who knows, a scanner color space for that matter.
All this stuff basically comes down to "pairing" the image content with the correct profile as the example above describes.
Once you get that far, (assigning source color space) you can then, preserve the color appearance via a conversion to another color space.
RGB and CMYK numbers are ambiguous. Send them to five different displays or printers, you’ll get five different colors.
RGB and CMYK are simply control signals that tell a display how much light of each color to emit, or how much ink of each color to lay down. But different displays have different definitions of "red", "green", and "blue"; different printers have different colors of C, M, Y, and K (and sometimes Light C, Light M, Light K, R, or B) inks, and the paper in turn has an effect on the resulting color. The bottom line is that RGB and CMYK numbers do not, of themselves, represent a specific color.
For example, RGB 210, 24, 37 is a nice bright red in Adobe RGB. To reproduce that same color on the monitor I happen to be typing this on, I’d need to send it something more like RGB 231, 0, 50. If I just sent the same numbers to the display, I’d get a duller and less saturated red. And if I sent those same original RGB numbers to my Epson 2200, I’d get a much darker and much more magenta red. In fact, that red can’t be reproduced by the Epson 2200, but I can get pretty close by sending it 251, 67, 33.
Now, you can sit down and manually, by trial and error, figure out how you have to change each RGB triplet to get the color you wanted on each different device, or you can use color management.
Color management does only two things:
1.) It lets you attach a specific color meaningthe color that humans actually seeto a set of otherwise-ambiguous RGB or CMYK numbers. When you Assign a profile, you’re attaching a specific color meaning, a specific color appearance, to the numbers.
2.) It lets you preserve that color meaning as you go from one device to another by changing the numbers to the new set of numbers the device in question needs to receive to produce the color appearance specified in 1. When you Convert from one profile to another, you’re changing the numbers with the goal of preserving the appearance as accurately as the physical limitations of the device will allow.
That’s all that color management ever does. It can be dressed up in fancier clothinga proofing simulation, for example, can involve multiple conversionsbut all color management operations boil down to some combination of specifying a color appearance for a set of numbers, and preserving that color appearance by changing the numbers as necessary.
Everyone obsesses about conversions (2, above), but they often overlook the simple fact that you can’t preserve a color appearance until you’ve first specified that color appearance (1, above).
Profiles are like dual-language dictionaries. They correlate the device numbersRGBs or CMYKs, the control signals the devices require to produce colorwith a set of numbers in a perceptually-based model like CIE LAB or CIE XYZ, which represent actual color appearance. So when you assign a profile, you’re simply specifying the actual color appearance the RGBs or CMYKs produce in a given context.
There are, of course, many implementation details, and every vendor seems to feel honor-bound to invent their own terminology, but anything you do with color management boils down to some combination of 1 and 2 above.
For quite awhile I have been reading here that one needs to recalibrate your monitor frquently. I thought that this was someone just trying to be a prefectionist. Recently I did a print run and my colors were off appreciably. I checked everything and finally I checked the monitor calibration. It was way off since I had last checked it about a year ago. I mean way off! Thanks for the constant reminder to stick with the basics!
When you use a hardware puck, you realize how monitors change over time, sometimes even very short periods of time. And the monitor profile files can get damaged at any time.
Color management is a very simple idea that admits insanely complex implementations. If you always break it down into specifying a color appearance, or converting to preserve that color appearance, I think you’ll find it gets less mysterious…
I’m impressed that this makes sense to somebody and still waiting for the ah ha. I’ve recalibrated my monitor following step by step instructions three or four times and read both the Adobe user guide and a third party guide which indeed make my head hurt. .. I get WONDERFUL photos if I use the software that came with my new Epson printer (PhotoImpressions) but I’d like to be able to manipulate them in PhotoShop as I used to in OS9. When I open them in PS there is too much red/magenta, and it prints out that way as well – I’ve tried checking any or all of the choices about assigning a profile or not color managing, and it is always the same old magenta-fest with PS. Can anyone tell me how to get PS to play nice like the cheaper photo software??
– Julie, who just wants to drive the damn thing not build the engine.
When I open them in PS there is too much red/magenta, and it prints
out that way as well
You need to tell Photoshop WHAT the SourceSpace of the document is…in order for Photoshop to PROOF (display) the SourceFile (the document) accurately on your calibrated monitor.
Yes, yes thank you – it looks beautiful and prints out beautifully. I then looked at my own photos and they look better on screen. however, there is an erro message that the camera RGB profile does not match the working Adobe RGB 1998 profile. It asks me whether to use the embedded profiel instead of the working space, convert doc. colors to working space, or discard (not color manage) the embedded profile. Hmmm. I know I should understand this at this point, after all the carefull info from g ballard, but… duh. What should I pick?
I haven’t tried printing directly from Iphoto yet, or from PhotoImpression (hope it still works like a charm) but I will tomorrow.
Also, I use a b/w hplaserjet 1200 for most of my daily text work and proofing. Will this require resetting printer info frequently if I’m printing to the laser printer out of InDesign or Photoshop?
oops. I just checked another photo, this time a scan (using the Epson printer/scanner) instead of from my camera. And there is all that magenta again. Not when I open it in the PhotoImpressions software, just in Photoshop. The error message reads that it does not have any embedded color profile, and asks if I want to leave it as is (don’t color manage) or assigne the RGB 1998. The final choice is to scroll through a list and assign a color profile. Could I safely assign the color profile of my specific printer? Right now it is set to not color manage at all.
Could I safely assign the color profile of my specific printer?
No, Julie. You don’t assign or convert a file to a monitor profile, EVER. Big no-no.
If it’s not tagged, open it as is (don’t color manage it). Then go to Image > Mode > Assign a profile and see which COLOR SPACE profile it looks best to you (provided the monitor is accurately calibrated). Try Apple RGB, Color Match RGB, sRGB (in other words not monitor profiles and certainly not printer profiles) and ASSIGN the one that looks best. Immediately thereafter, convert to your working space (Adobe RGB) and save. Now you can work on your file.
When you go to print, go to Print With Preview, and there’s where you specify your ink/paper/printer profile for printing purposes (not to embed it in the file).
Scroll down to the 10th little tutorial on this page and follow along. It only takes a minute or so to execute and try out the very last paragraph for yourself. In my case it actually worked.
If you wanted to test your monitor accuracy, just take the AdobeRGB tagged PDI file off gballard’s site and convert a copy to your custom monitor profile and save it with it’s own name.
Then open it in PictureViewer or any nonCM app and see if it looks the same to the original in PS.
Mine does, but they each have different RGB data readouts when both opened in PS. That’s color management!
Make sure when you convert and save, you embed your monitor profile so you can open it in your monitor space in PS and it will also look identical while the original remains in AdobeRGB space.
I always miss those little details when I give instruction. 8/
–>there is all that magenta again. Not when I open it in the PhotoImpressions software, just in Photoshop. The error message reads that it does not have any embedded color profile…
The absence of an embedded profile means that to Photoshop, the numbers in the file are so much RGB Mystery Meat, and it doesn’t have a clue what colors those numbers represent other than that R is some shade of red, G is some shade of green, and B is some shade of blue.
The request to assign a profile is a request by Photoshop to you to tell Photoshop what colors the numbers in the image represent.
Since you liked the way it looked in PhotoImpressions, and PhotoImpressions doesn’t have any color management, what you liked was the RGB values in the file sent directly to the monitor. If you assign your monitor profile, I suspect you’ll get the same appearance in Photoshop as you did in PhotoImpressions. It’ll likely print that way too.
This is an emergency fix rather than a recommended workflowit’s a bad idea to shoehorn all your color through monitor RGB for a variety of reasonsbut it should at least give you a solid floor to stand on until you’re more comfortable with this stuff.
You can take it a step further by verifying using a Fuji Frontier at your local photolab.
Make a small 300ppi 4×6 max quality jpeg version on a copy of the PDI file of sampled elements in the file. I use the bottom row with the baby’s for fleshtones and include the Gretag colorchart and whatever else you can fit. You’ll have to reduce the original’s dimensions slightly to get it to fit in a 4×6. Burn to CD and output to the Fuji asking the operator not to do any corrections.
Download several free profiles among the thousands from DryCreek Photo.com of the Fuji printer in your area. I’ve found most either subtely lean toward the blue or yellow with slightly varying shadow densities between them.
Open your 4×6 PDI file in PS and assign several different Fuji printer profiles that make your file look like the print. You may have to go back and download others.
Assigning is for preview purposes ONLY. Cancel out once you’ve found a Fuji printer profile that makes the PDI file look like the print.
Most of these printers don’t read profiles, so you’ll have to convert (not assign) to the chosen profile.
Convert, save, burn to CD and output to the Fuji asking the operator to not correct in anyway. Compare the print to the AdobeRGB tagged PDI file. It should look very close to your preview in PS.
Find out before you start this test when they change the chemicals because old chemistry gives a maroonish tint to the prints.
I obviously haven’t grasped much of the scientific gobbledegoop behind any of this yet but the PDI Target test did teach me this much, my monitor profile is a little off and I at least know how to do that much. Plus, I’ve got some serious studying to do. Could either one of you recommend a good book on this subject? <g> Lucky for me that ignorance is curable.
Thanks for all of the good info. But in a perfect world I wish:
When you brought an image into Photoshop you only had to specify what format the image was going to (Print, Web, etc.) and then it automatically would bring up a base "color look". You, in turn, tweaked the colors to your liking and upon saving the job it would look exactly in the final application as you saw it on screen. Maybe the technology could even read poorly calibrated screens to still adjust the settings to give you exactly what you saw on the screen.
When you brought an image into Photoshop you only had to specify what format the image was going to (Print, Web, etc.) and then it automatically would bring up a base "color look".
This is what the prebinding thesis tries to address Gordon..
There are self calibrating monitors but I doubt you’d want to flip that bill. I don’t.
Color mgmt. has only just begun to take shape. There are many solutions and eventually some workflows and ideologies will come to pass and fade into obsolete.
They "Adobe" is trying to simplify, but, they are not, realizing that "global thinking" must change to rules of simplicity, yet host a Photoshop, ZEN for those who want an open archecture.
Radical change, requests radical think as well as actions.
Other than that, I think I’ll go cut the grass, trim the trees.
After you get PS7 PS8 PSCS Color Management, and Epson workflow nailed down, this link is likely your best free resource to read up on SoftProof and workflow:
In your conversion you did stick with relative colorimetric and black point compensation. You shouldn’t be that off. What calibrator did you use to build your profile?
If using an eyeball calibrator, use SuperCal and pick sRGB or Trinitron phosphors which ever is closest. Apple’s Calibrator has something going on under the hood for the life of me I can’t figure out. It doesn’t give you the choice of choosing what type of phosphors your CRT is based on. It either reads it from your DDC or it plugs in the Generic RGB Profile XYZ’s (very bad) which gives a similar preview if you build a 1.8 gamma profile.
Thanks Mike and g. I guess the limited range that I see myself using Photoshop makes me cringe to think of the complex and potentially complex-er-er steps to master accurate transmissions. Your information helps a LOT. I just wish it was even more basic for the casual user (or simple minded) user like me. Thanks.
It may be complex but just go through and assign the myriad of profiles in the Assign dialog box to the same file and watch the previews change to get an idea of the hell without color management.
Sure, some are very close to each other, showing very little difference, but can anyone be assured everyone will adhere to that standard? And which standard should we use?
just go through and assign the myriad of profiles in the Assign dialog box to the same file and watch the previews change to get an idea of the hell without color management.
Incidentally, that’s a great learning tool when you tackle the task of attempting to understand color management for the first time. At least it was for me.
That and repeating what I understand here in these forums is a good memory refresher as well. Out of site, out of mind and troubleshooting this stuff becomes a hell in itself.
G has the gist of it, but as Bruce says, the implementation of it can be a can of worms.
I can trumpet that statement.
There are so many things that can screw a job. If we give the users a path, it will fix most of the issues, but not all. The whole thing that has to happen is to get the technical crap out of the hands of the user. Most don’t what it and to be honest, at times, I don’t want it either. I just want to be able to sit down with confidence that what I’m doing to a file is what will be the final outcome on at least a contract proof. It’s easier said than done, but if we give a "best guess" target and tween from there, I know that for a fact that the outcome will be much more predictable as well as editable.
A bucket of common fruits will yield a better final taste compared to a bushel of "garden variety" files.
The truth is that when I first approached color management, I just couldn’t grasp the basics. I couldn’t even begin to understand what I was reading in the books until "something" clicked; I’m not exactly sure what it was, but I do know I had that epiphany when I read all the info on your site. After that, even the books began to make sense.
One thing that overwhelms people like me at the beginning is that, for those of us interested exclusively in photography, the very concepts of RGB and CMYK are an impenetrable barrier. Once I understood that I could safely ignore anything that had to do with CMYK, the books suddenly became thinner and more manageable.
If all the chapters, paragraphs and references in Bruce Fraser’s "Real World Photoshop" that have to do with CMYK were removed, it would be an ideal solution –for folks like me.
In your conversion you did stick with relative colorimetric and black point compensation. You shouldn’t be that off. What calibrator did you use to build your profile?
Yes – it was only off a tad – I’m using a Monaco Optix puck for that. It might have been off just a little because, as G points out, it’s important to consider a starting point before calibrating your monitor and I wasn’t aware of that.
G, thanks for the list of recommended books. Without even looking, I’m leaning towards Bruce’s book who does seem to be the Eric Clapton of color management these days but his book might be overkill for the RGB inkjet hobbyist guy that I am. Maybe not though. I’ll check them out.
Now I can read the entire book; but at the very beginning it (the whole book –sorry, Bruce) was useless to me, until I ignored all the CMYK stuff. Once I had understood the rest, many months later I went back at my leisure and read (most of) what I had skipped.
So far, CMYK has not been relevant to my workflow; but at least now I know what it is. 🙂
I am feeling dumber by the minute – I’ll try to follow the instructions and see how it goes, but I’ve gotta admit, I feel like a blind person going down an alley with someone else’s voice instructions. Still waiting for the ah ha.
Using the scanner, i came to a configurations section and tried four different combinations 1- color control with coninuous auto exposure checked and display gama 1.8 2- color synch sourc: scanner Epson standard target: Monoitor RGB 3-same as last but monitor RGB 1998 (1998 seems to be a popular solution in some of the reading) 4-no color correction
The first one (default, color control continuous autor exposure, gama 1.8) looks best on the screen. Should I be printing these out, or is the monitor now accurately reflecting the print quality??
I am feeling dumber by the minute – I’ll try to follow the instructions and see how it goes, but I’ve gotta admit, I feel like a blind person going down an alley with someone else’s voice instructions. Still waiting for the ah ha.
Using the scanner, i came to a configurations section and tried four different combinations 1- color control with coninuous auto exposure checked and display gama 1.8 2- color synch sourc: scanner Epson standard target: Monoitor RGB 3-same as last but monitor RGB 1998 (1998 seems to be a popular solution in some of the reading) 4-no color correction
The first one (default, color control continuous autor exposure, gama 1.8) looks best on the screen. Should I be printing these out, or is the monitor now accurately reflecting the print quality??
I just found the CMYK SWOP choice checked in the Destination section of Image>mode>convert to profile path. knowing that CMYK is mostly for output at a four-color service bureau (not my desktop printer), I was inclinded to thing I should change it. But the particular file was the test file I downloaded, and by God it printed SO beautifully with the settings as is.
Then I remembered being told that ADJUSTING photos in CMYK and then changing them to RGB sometimes gives better results. Or is that an old wives tale? Another supposed trick – when going to black and white, adjust first in color, then go to lab color, throw away channels a & b, THEN go to grayscale. That one really DOES result in better clarity. Don’t ask me why
Then I remembered being told that ADJUSTING photos in CMYK and then changing them to RGB sometimes gives better results. Or is that an old wives tale?
That is sheer lunacy, that’s what it is! You’ll lose information (detail) that way, for reasons I don’t want to confuse you with right now.
Another supposed trick – when going to black and white, adjust first in color, then go to lab color, throw away channels a & b, THEN go to grayscale. That one really DOES result in better clarity. Don’t ask me why
There are many ways of converting to b&w. The one you mention is not one of the better ones. You don’t even have to convert to grayscale. Channel Mixer > Monochrome gives you much more control, as do several other methods.
1) The Color Management System CONVERTS the SourceSpace/File into MonitorRGB (the custom "calibrated" monitor profile) and PROOFs the color accurately on the screen
2) The Color Management System CONVERTS the SourceSpace/File into the TargetProfile/Space (the custom "calibrated" printer profile) and PROOFs the color accurately on the printed paper
Color Management is ONLY about CONVERSIONS (and knowing the file’s SourceSpace): A SourceSpace is CONVERTED to a TargetSpace It starts with a good monitor profile (to PROOF the color acurately on screen), and it ends with a good target profile (to PROOF the color accurately on the print)
The simple challenge (for me) is knowing when/where the Conversion takes place…
Using the Digital Color Meter method, I discovered that all 6 read perfectly except the Red, which reads 255 0 19. In addition, I metered all levels of gray that Apple uses in the Panther interface, and they were all dead neutral. The black & white in Safari was also dead neutral at 0 0 0 & 255 255 255 respectively, as were the black & white in Photoshop.
I wonder how I can have just one color off? It seems like if one were off, they’d all be off.
..I just found the CMYK SWOP choice checked in the Destination section of Image>mode>convert to profile path
So, I SHOULD be changing this to RGB1998, if that is the targetspace I choose?
What scanner software? Epson photo RX600 is the scanner and the printer (multifunction) It has six inks (light and dark magenta etc)
Are you scanning directly into Photoshop? When I do the magenta is heavy.
In not scanning into PS, when PS opens the scan, what Color Management splash screen do you get, if any?
It says there is no embedded profile, and gives me the three choices. It was set on the printer profile, which I now understand is a no no. I tried #1 don’t manage, #2 assign RGB, and a variety in the choices under #3 assign profile. They all look redder than the original, or than in PhotoImpressions software.
Does PS display the color the same as the scanner’s preview??? No. The scanner’s preview does not have too much red. However, the scanner preview is a little tiny bit fuzzy and/or muddy compared to the beautiful original when I open it side by side.
I just created your 255 red and 255,0,19 in two swatches overlapping each other in a new AdobeRGB space file in PS. There’s no visual difference. I can’t see where one starts and the other begins.
Looks like an error (quantization?) in math written to your LUT. I don’t think it’s anything to be concerned about. You might do what I just did to see if you get the same results. If you can see a difference, then I’ld be concerned.
The solution? Recalibrate starting with a canned profile like sRGB or AppleRGB.
Experimenting on the test sheet with the faces and babies, I found what someone mentioned above (and what g told me about, image>mode>assign profile), the place to go through all the different choices and compare when assigning a profile – the closest is Colormatch RGB (Epson colormatch GRB was exactly the same, but I thought I should avoid the printer at this step) but I notice it is not quite as sharp as the original, and the yellow isn’t true but looks a little mustardy. should I stick with it? should I tweak something?
I did a little experiment with the red swatches and viewed the AdobeRGB file in Proof Setup Custom with Preserve Color Numbers checked and went through several device profiles in the menu and now I could see a difference. Never noticed that before. …mmh wonder what that means?
I guess my 255 red is so saturated in AdobeRGB that I can’t see the difference between the two patches.
When you say the TAGGED file, do you mean the one I downloaded? it does look perfect.
But if I scan the beautiful print of it on my scanner and open it in another program, it is off a little. And none of the choices make it perfectly match the original.
A puck is a hardware device you can by, essentially a colorimeter with calibration software, like the ColorVision Spyder.
When you say the TAGGED file, do you mean the one I downloaded? it does look perfect.
From G Ballard’s site you can download different versions of that test file, one with no embedded profile ("untagged"), others with an embedded profile ("tagged"). I don’t know which one you downloaded. If you have one that came with an embedded profile, which you preserved, and the file looks perfect, then your monitor profile is OK.
But if I scan the beautiful print of it on my scanner and open it in another program, it is off a little. And none of the choices make it perfectly match the original.
Ah, that’s a different issue! Now you’re running into the limitations of the scanner. Calibrating a scanner and producing a profile for it is a different story.
The downloaded color test file says "tagged:embedded" so I guess my monitor is okay. thanks for the advice. I’ll check with the techies at Epson to see if this is as good as it gets – I have to say Epson is more responsive than most software companies. No long waits or multiple voice message steps, you get a real person and they don’t pass the buck. They walk you through things. It has made me glad I bought Epson.
Thanks to all who’ve contributed – don’t you guys have lives?!? (just kidding – I couldn’t be happier that you’ve stuck with this thread)
Here’s what I got out of this, in practical terms.
1) calibrate your monitor often.
2) when you open something in photoshop, go to image>mode>assign a profile first thing. Experiment once to pick the one you like best, probably an RGB of some variety. Don’t worry about the name of your printer here – this is not the place to do that – don’t pick those choices.
3) image>mode>assign a profile. probably best to pick Adobe RGB 1998, in my case.
4) tone and adjust your photo
5) When you go to print, use preview. specify ink/paper/PRINTER profile here.
I just discovered all the replies in my trash. I wondered why signing up for e-mail notification of responses wasn’t working… and I guess I got real close to perfect on the color, but it is still a little washed out…compared to the downloaded tagged sample file…so, I’ll be listening if anybody has any more "try this" ideas. Thanks. And yes, there is life after Photoshop.
2) when you open something in photoshop, go to image>mode>assign a profile first thing. Experiment once to pick the one you like best, probably an RGB of some variety.
Not if you the image file has an embedded profile already ("is tagged"); if it has one, leave it as it is (preserve it).
Finally,
I got real close to perfect on the color, but it is still a little washed out…compared to the downloaded tagged sample file…so, I’ll be listening if anybody has any more "try this" ideas.
What is "it"? If you’re talking about having printed out the test file, then scanning the print on your scanner and then looking at the scanned file, if you "got real close to perfect on the color" you’ve done better than most folks can. 🙂
At the most, you can try minor saturation and minute brightness/contrast adjustment on new adjustment layers, so you don’t alter the other layers.
Well done, Julie! 🙂
–PS — Yes, I still have somewhat of a life after having had a very long and privileged one, though lately I’ve been convalescing and spending most of my time at home. Wife is out of town, children and grandchild out of the house away from home.
I know much of this might appear to be maddening redundancy at times but believe me, I agree with the earlier comments that this truly is slowly but surely starting to sink in, and I appreciate the pros taking the time to hang in there with us on this one.
Once you get a chance to look at a 3 dimensional color space model and plot the exact same numbers from two different color spaces, The light bulb will come on with respect to "give meaning" to the numbers via assign profile. You’ll see the difference between the two and then understand why the preview changes, but not the numbers.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
