I just started to use CS4, set up all of my color preferences and opened up an image. I thought that it looked a little bit lighter than what I remembered so I opened up the same image in CS3 and it does look different. The 3/4 tones to the shadows all appear slightly lighter than in CS3. I checked the soft proofing in CS4 and I found that when I select the Monitor RGB and apply soft proofing, that fixes the issue. But as soon as I try and select any other profile the image appears lighter than the same soft proof in CS3. Any ideas? And yes my monitor is calibrated, I have the Eizo CG 241 and I am using and 8 Core Mac Pro with 18gb ram and running OS 10.5.5.
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.
This is with any file and it’s the same no matter how I open it. Even if I create a new document and fill with black, 0,0,0, then compare that to the same file in CS3 I can clearly see a difference. Visually the black in CS4 looks close to 25,25,25 in CS3.
I’ve been using Apple CMM instead of ACE for some time to get around a bug with Perceptual rendering with ACE and haven’t noticed any problems. Care to elaborate? Ideally with specifics highlighting such problems that I can replicate.
Apple Color Sync has been broken for ages. Its color conversions are unreliable, to say the least.
I extremely rarely use Perceptual rendering. I find that the overwhelming majority of images respond better to Relative Colorimetric rendering intent.
Apple has never gotten color management right. For instance, all Apple applications (from the Finder through iPhoto and Aperture to Safari) throw Monitor RGB at all untagged images, instead of assuming sRGB. If you have a wide-gamut monitor, the resulting damage will be anything but subtle. But even with a monitor with a mediocre profiled close to sRGB, there will be a color shift.
Obviously, someone doing all or mostly web work will hardly notice. But if your images go to printย
"Obviously, someone doing all or mostly web work will hardly notice. But if your images go to printย "
I run a professional digital printmaking business so if you have specifics of these ColorSync problems (in the context of Photoshop’s rendering) I’d like to see them. Otherwise…
Re: White no longer white in v. CS Posted: 04-06-2004, 12:10 AM That isn’t odd – that is expected if the documents are using the working space and don’t have their own profiles.
Those small value differences could come from changing the color engine (known problem in ColorSync) – the Adobe/ACE engine will give the best results. They could also come from changing the rendering intent, or from other profiles that you chose for CMYK and Grayscale.
if you set the same Color Settings in CS3 CS4 — North American Prepress 2 — you are saying the same main monitor is displaying the same file differently (that’s hard to believe)
when I select the Monitor RGB and apply soft proofing, that fixes the
issue
I don’t understand that do you mean View> Proof Set Up> MonitorRGB corrects the problem
you know that is the same as Edit> Assign Profile> MonitorRGB and both would give you the same solid clue to the problem
most likely the problem lies in Color Settings not matching
I double checked my color settings in both apps and they are the same. Since I first posted about this issue I have done a complete system install, OS and all apps. This still did not fix the issue I am having, but it did clear up some issues I was having with ColorNavigator. Now softproofing with monitor rgb does nothing. Here is a link to a screen grab I did. On the left is CS4 and on the right is CS3. I created a new document in each PS then filled with K, 0,0,0. I was able to install CS4 on an older machine that also had CS3, and on that machine everything is fine. I guess I will install a fresh OS on another drive, and just put CS3 and CS4 on that drive and see if I still have the issue.
No I mean Steve Peters and I mean if this is not supposed to be working for Steve Peters and it does work for him then he is i=either onto an issue or perhaps onto a solution.
Rather than dismissing it or ridiculing it I think it should be looked at especially by the photoshop and color management teams to see if the inadvertently missed something important.
Blue block, black block, is that it? Which one is which and what was the problem again? Are those screen shots or what?
This doesn’t appear to be a "slightly lighter 3/4 tone" problem. This appears to be a ‘I don’t know where all the new buttons are" problem. Of course Safari is color managed so who knows what the intent was, all I know is what I see.
"This appears to be a ‘I don’t know where all the new buttons are problem."
If you don’t have anything constructive to add, why not keep your posts to yourself? CS4 is a lot more flakey than most people would seem to have noticed, so I wouldn’t discount this being yet another glitch.
Well when I first posted this issue I was looking at a photo, and if you read my first post I said 3/4 tones to shadow. Since then I did some more testing to rule out that the problem wasn’t image specific. I thought that the best way to rule that out was to create a new document in both apps, then fill them with 0,0,0. In both CS3 and CS4 the color reads 0,0,0, but when you open up the screen grab in PS the left side is now 18,18,18. So, yes, this image has nothing to do with 3/4 tones, but the point was to show that you can clearly see that left side is lighter than the right. I am not sure that showing a gray ramp would really tell us anything more. I have been using PS since 2.0, and I make my living with it, so I think I have some idea of how PS and color management work. Lundberg02, If you open up the screen grab I posted and the tone on both sides look the same or you think that they are blue, you need to get a better monitor or check your calibration. Also, if you have read all of my post I stated that I also installed CS4 on another machine that already had CS3, and on that machine everything was fine. Today I did a clean OS install on another drive of the 8 Core, then I only installed PS CS3 and CS4. Did the same comparison as before and everything is fine. Obviously I have some conflict with some other software or utility. I installed ColorNavigator, created a new target, calibrated my monitor, saved the file profile, then quit the application. Checked PS again and everything is fine. Previously I had some issues with ColorNavigator not saving my targets, again I thought maybe it was some conflict with some other apps I had on my system, but this time all I had on my OS was PS CS3 & CS4. So I opened up CN again I noticed that the target I just created was gone. When I looked in the display preferences I could see that the profile that CN created was still there. So now I have to try and deal with that issue. Thanks, Steve
You should use a service like the free pixentral.com to place a representation of a graphic on a server with a link back here, rather than using yousendit.com forcing us to download it to see it.
Also, be aware that, for a number of reasons, many folks simply will not download posted graphics.
Sorry about that last post. I don’t usually spend to much time posting or writing. Neil, thanks for the tip about pixentral, I will use that next time. I have a yousendit account, so that was the easiest way I could think of. I will report back if I figure out what is going on.
The left image reads 10,10,10, no matter what reader i use. The right hand is 0,0,0. The black is black. All other grey scales on my monitor are perfectly grey only this one is blue. I am trying to figure out the WTF as we speak.
It’s a little more complex than that. I need to check a few things. Every grey scale I have looked at from sources at drycreek and others looks normal except one. I think it’s a problem with the gamma correction approximation near black and Supercal and the real accuracy of the grey scale. It might even be that the gamma approximation is different in CS4 and the OP had a point, but I can’t check that.
The problem with manual calibration is that the human eye is easily fooled by such factors as the color previously viewed, adjacent colors, ambient light, how tired you are, having no optimized point of reference, etc. I mean, even what you think is a "great" picture on an standard def TV pales the moment you put it side-by-side with a properly calibrated HDTV.
I’m still guessing at the cause because i haven’t been able to do a test, but it may turn out to be the blue gamma trimming in SuperCal. As I said, all test greyscales are normal except one and it has to do with gamma somehow. I am also suspicious of CS4 for obvious reasons. I don’t like having technical glitches on my system so just sheer FUD will drive me to fix it. SuperCal blue gamma was not as easy to do as the other two colors, I remember. Probably has to do with blue itself.
Yes, this is definitely a case for hardware cal, if I gave a s— about critical color match for clients. Everything I want to do is just fine.
Right now, I only give a s— about my real clients. My workload has just gone up by a factor of six because the dumbass IT people at an international organization, which shall be nameless, have finally fixed what they have had screwed up since June. "Oh, we’re just going to make a few simple changes to the firewall" "We’re just going to switch over to a global database, no problem" " We’re not going to do the regional offices just yet" "We’re going to let a new outfit do that" " We’ll let you have access after we’re done".
I have two HDTVS and it isn’t worth the money. Luckily mine were free. I had to pay for the service but it came bundled with twice the internet speed which I was going to do anyway. The new remotes are a PIA.
Well, a properly calibrated high-quality LCD or Plasma set fed high-quality source content can produce stunning images. (Yeah, even TVs should be calibrated for critical viewing.) The cheapest LCD models might have very attractive prices, but they’re often poorer in picture quality than even the midrange sets. (I’ve been doing a lot of research on which 46" to get to replace our 8-year-old 32" Sony.)
Many folks though miss out on what their sets can deliver, though. Big box stores (and most consumers) just open the box, plug the set in and turn it on. Period. And another bright, high-contrast, over-saturated picture is born. It’s what catches your attention in the store. Kinda like an electronic car crash.
But, I think we’ve strayed a bit from the original topic! <g>
Well, a properly calibrated high-quality LCD or Plasma set fed high-quality source content can produce stunning images. (Yeah, even TVs should be calibrated for critical viewing.)
What many people don’t realize is that the cheapest LCD models have very attractive prices, but they’re often poorer in picture quality than even the midrange sets. (I’ve been doing a lot of research on which 46" to get to replace our 8-year-old 32" Sony.)
And many folks though miss out on what their sets can deliver. Big box stores (and most consumers) just open the box, plug the set in and turn it on. Period. And another bright, high-contrast, over-saturated picture is born. It’s what catches your attention in the store. Kinda like an electronic car crash.
But, I think we’ve strayed a bit from the original topic! <g>
Wow! This thread is very interesting. I read the first and last pair of posts and its a totally different ice cream! Brilliant!
If anyone is interested i have a brand new copy of CS3, The whole Lord of the Rings Blue Ray set, and three copies of Mark Twain unbridged audio book edition by Pinguin for sale.
Sorry, this forum is not for classifieds. If it were, I would have listed my 21" Sony Trinitron monitor and a bunch of old Beta movies here a long time ago. <g>
Neil, If the source were better I might agree that you can tell the difference. I spent years and years in the television and display business. The increased number of pixels just gives you 16:9 in HD without more than about 50% increase in lines per degree, if that, and when the content was shot with a digicam or is regular movie fare, bleh. I have tweaked every control in the OSD a dozen times and they don’t do much in the optimum regions. You can certainly destroy the picture, though. Mine have presets for movies, etc, but they are useless, you have to do it yourself. I don’t even watch the HD channels more than once a week if that. My monitor will show me movies in better quality than HD if the source is good. Vertical resolution is very important in the perception of quality. Target recognition is based on line pairs per target height in military use.
I am still puzzled by the blue grey scale problem. The Norman Koren grey scale test pattern gives me a very nice grey scale picture of a canyon, and yet the scales below it go blue. Any other grey scale test pattern is normal.
Got to build some scales of my own again. I know, I know, recalibrate. I don’t have time right now.
