ColorSync Sucks

L
Posted By
Lundberg02
Jan 7, 2009
Views
1093
Replies
38
Status
Closed
A few weeks ago, or months or eons, someone posted a problem he was having with an image that looked different in CS3/CS4. It turned out he didn’t explain or post the right image and it led to one of those eternal threads by the usual suspects.
Anyway, he had posted a side by side and I told him the left hand one was blue. It was actually a 10,10,10 fill.
Of course everyone told me that I was nuts and had a bad monitor profile, and since i am never wrong, I said that something else must be the problem because my grey scale test targets were fine etc etc. I went to drycreek and looked at Norman Koren’s grey scale, and whoa! the very dark step above black was blue. Here’s where it gets odd. I was looking at it in Preview or Safari and it was damn sure blue. I opened it in CS2 and it was grey. I already knew or thought I knew that ColorSync has some problems. It puzzled me, though.
G Ballard had posted the PDI target because of some other thread and i had put it in my rendering intent folder, The other day I finally felt like pursuing dumbass minor irritations and opened it in Preview. The 18,18,18 step was blue, but only that step. I copied the PDI and opened that in CS2 right next to it. Preview (ColorSync) blue. CS2 grey.
You already know I’m too broke to buy expensive stuff and I use SuperCal for monitor profiling. I don’t sell anything but my feeble brainpower on the web and my prints are just for me and family so WTF. SuperrCal has never given me any grief and i think it is an excellent product for the amateur.

My point?

Several things:
1. Don’t trust ColorSync. I.E. don’t trust Preview or Safari. I refuse to upgrade FireFox to 3 for other reasons, like my paycheck.
2. This is pretty certain to be a problem with the way ColorSync approximates gamma correction at both the high and low end, and Photoshop uses a better method.
3. People use the expression gamma when they mean gamma correction and they also don’t realize that the gamma correction is only an approximation at the low end to prevent blocking up and at the high end because of saturation.
4. I’m always right.
5. SuperCal has a method of correcting the individual color gammas which is more difficult for blue. This may be due to the typical problems with blue such as low signal to noise ratio.

Let the games begin.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

P
pfigen
Jan 7, 2009
ColorSync is only the mechanism used to perform the color matching. It’s only as good as the quality of the data that it has to work with.
GB
g_ballard
Jan 7, 2009
here, I drag the PDI file into an open Safari window (Safari Honors the profile and Converts it to Monitor RGB)

I open an exact copy of the same PDI file in Ps CS4 using the embedded profile (Ps Honors the profile and Converts it to Monitor RGB)

and the two files look identical in brightness, color and neutral gray areas

this is consistent with the theory, what I have always seen, and what I expected

before losing more hair, I would try the test in a new user to help rule out corruption and misses user setting

other than that, I would suspect system problems if Ps confirms proper display of desaturated RGB, and Safari displays the same tagged JPG with blue tint
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Jan 8, 2009
Still can’t get anyone to explain why Bridge 1.0.x displays my AdobeRGB tagged Pentax K100D jpegs with a greenish tint.

I posted over at the Bridge Mac forum and didn’t get any answers. There’s a screenshot I linked in that post if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions. Here’s the link to my unanswered topic…

<http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b72ad0>

This is not a display profile or calibration problem, but I suspect something to do with Colorsync, maybe.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jan 8, 2009
Bridge 1.0 is long out of date but possibly it just used your Monitor profile?
R
Ram
Jan 8, 2009
There were massive bugs in Bridge 1.x, which were discussed in early Bridge forum threads, with the participation of Ian Lyons as well as Bridge engineers, and fixed in subsequent releases.

Among other things, it had difficulties with so-called legacy ICC profiles used by Kodak and others in JPEGs.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Jan 8, 2009
Thanks for the input.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 8, 2009
I know now that I can only trust Photoshop. End of story. Some day I may Upgrade to FireFox 3 on a non critical computer and see what happens in its color management, and Mitt Romney will be President.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 12, 2009
I succumbed to no pressure and updated FireFox to 3.0.5. I wish to hell I hadn’t, because of its stupid quirks, but its CM displays the errant grey scales correctly.
GB
g_ballard
Jan 12, 2009
FF with color management enabled is probably good because it uses its own CMS (not ColorSync)

what happens if you set ColorSync as the CMS in Ps
Ps> Color Settings> Conversion Options> Engine: Apple CMM

logic would predict that the problem would then follow Ps (if Apple CMM is corrupted or set wrong)
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jan 12, 2009
what happens if you set ColorSync as the CMS in Photoshop

Ps> Color Settings> Conversion Options> Engine: Apple CMM

Totally disastrous! The option to do that should have been removed from Photoshop long ago.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 12, 2009
Right, Ann, why ask for more trouble than you already have.
GB
g_ballard
Jan 12, 2009
guess you just have to have a curious mind to see how things work sometimes
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jan 12, 2009
Â…or how to break things that do work?!!!

8/
GB
g_ballard
Jan 12, 2009
Ann,

It seems all you are looking for these days is an argument…take care.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Jan 12, 2009
Not at all, G.

But too many people have fallen into the "ColorSync Engine" trap in the past to let your suggestion to use it pass without comment.
P
pfigen
Jan 12, 2009
There’s a difference between using a "ColorSync" workflow as chosen in Ps preferences and simply choosing the Apple CMM over the Adobe CMM.
L
Lundberg02
Jan 14, 2009
It turns out FireFox 3.0.5 sucks even worse than Safari but for different reasons. Mozilla managed to screw up tabbing worse than Safari, the GUI is worse, downloads are totally hosed. Now i’ll have to find some way to revert.

I use FF for work because it was previously very suitable and more reliable. Now I can use it for work but nothing else. The upgrade lost a bunch of stored addresses as well.

The CMM is fine , but since i can’t download any images reliably it’s back to Slowfari. Maybe i’ll try one of my other three browsers just for the hell of it.

Mozilla help is useless of course.
B
Bernie
Jan 14, 2009
Are you saying you can’t find FF v2?
P
Phosphor
Jan 14, 2009
FF 3.0.newest works better for me than FF 2.newest ever did.

Apparently, your mileage does vary.
R
Ram
Jan 14, 2009
Firefox 3.0.5 is working perfectly on my system.
NT
Nini Tj
Jan 14, 2009
Firefox 3.0.5 works perfectly on both my personal machines and most machines in the office too. Regardless of if in Tiger or Leopard (in the office we have both).

As for FF2 I think it has been discontinued as 3.x has been out for quite some time by now.
JJ
Jim_Jordan
Jan 14, 2009
Mozilla managed to screw up tabbing worse than Safari, the GUI is worse, downloads are totally hosed

What does that mean?

Tabs work fine; if one is inclined, the GUI can be themed to look like Safari and add-ons can take it the rest of the way*; and there is no problem downloading on a normal system. What’s up?

* <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1951> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1245>
P
Phosphor
Jan 14, 2009
Gotta love the FOSS developers that keep ALL older versions available for download. A buddy of mine was having trouble accessing Comcast mail through the web portal, using an iMac rev. E.

Hooked him up with the last Mozilla version for OS 9.2.2 the other week, and he’s a happy camper now.
NT
Nini Tj
Jan 14, 2009
Ramón, read the first sentence though on that page. "Firefox 2.0.0.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until mid-December, 2008. All users are strongly encouraged to upgrade to Firefox 3.".
L
Lundberg02
Jan 14, 2009
It’s easy to revert. You just drop 3 in the trash and reinstall 2, which works perfectly just as it did before. All your stuff is in your Firefox profile located somewhere else.
FF 3.0.5 has been the subject of numerous bitch sessions all over the intertubes.

I’m going to wait six months before I check it out again. What a disaster.

The list of problems is too long to show, and i didn’t get to try most of it. All versions of 2 were completely satisfactory for work.

Slowfari needs work.
R
Ram
Jan 15, 2009
Nini,

What is the matter with you??

What you quoteÂ…

"Firefox 2.0.0.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until mid-December, 2008. All users are strongly encouraged to upgrade to Firefox 3."

Â…means that there will be no further updates to Firefox 2.x after December, 2008.

The application itself is indeed available for downloading on that page.

Put down your crack pipe for a day, lady.
R
Ram
Jan 15, 2009
Lundberg02,

Firefox 3.0.5 works flawlessly here.

Safari remains a slug. I check it periodically, after each update, and it just doesn’t measure up.
P
Phosphor
Jan 15, 2009
Whaddaya know!? Ramon and I are on the same side of the tether-ball pole on this issue!

😉 XD
R
Ram
Jan 15, 2009
As long as issues don’t become personal, we’re on the same side regarding Photoshop and computing most of the time, Phos. Other areas are a different story.
P
peterpica
Jan 15, 2009
FireFox works great but I still use Omnipage by preference only. Seems a tad more dependable regarding consistency of URL downloads (quicker cache access?) just dunno.
R
Ram
Jan 15, 2009
It’s Firefox, not "FireFox".

I thought Omnipage is a character recognition program? ???
L
Lundberg02
Jan 16, 2009
FireFox, FireShmox. 3.0.5 wouldn’t even download anything, among many other ghastly quirks.
P
Phosphor
Jan 16, 2009
PEBKAC
NT
Nini Tj
Jan 16, 2009
Lundberg02, that’s on YOUR machine. It is not universal in any way.
JJ
Jim_Jordan
Jan 16, 2009
Lundberg02, what happens when you sit at another Mac for which you do not have admin control? Does Firefox work well on that other Mac?
L
Lundberg02
Jan 16, 2009
Many many users have complained that 3.0.5 does not work on both platforms. I don’t care, if something doesn’t work i don’t use it and have no further interest in it.
P
Phosphor
Jan 16, 2009
I invite him to sit in front of my machine—on which he has no admin control, just to see that everything—which I am also working with—he has complained about for the last 3 years works pretty much without a hitch.

Master Retouching Hair

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.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections