ICC management as per Epson

[Andrew Rodney]

I'm sure choosing monitor ICC as your working space is not the
right thing to do. And you are right - Photoshop’s factoring
in monitor profile somewhere along the way.

It's a VERY bad idea!
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Andrew Rodney]

All related issues around color management, specially the printing
process is convoluted and senseless.

Convoluted? Yes in a way. You have to understand that BOTH Photoshop and the Epson driver can control color managmement and you need to be darn sure you have one or the other set properly. Epson doesn't expect you to HAVE to use Photoshop to color manage it's output so they provide tools in the driver.

Sensless, no way. If you want the best quality output that also can be soft proofed on screen, you have to use ICC profiles. In fact, Photoshop CAN'T be used without color management (unless you want to continue to run PS4).
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Andrew Rodney]

Questions:
If you want to use your own developed profiles, what should the
settings be like in PS7?

Forget the color settings, they will not be a factor here.

Method one. Use Convert to Profile. Photoshop does an RGB to RGB conversion where the first is your RGB Working Space (Adobe RGB, ColorMatch RGB etc). The 2nd is the "Print Space" (your Epson profile). File is ready for output. Key here is NOT doing a double dose of profiling which will hose the output. So when you print, Document Space in the print dialog will show "Epson RGB" (whatever name the profile was that was used above). Print Space should be set to SAME AS SOURCE!!!!! That tells Photoshop to pass the data through to the printer.

Method two. Use the profile for your printer in Print Space! This tells Photoshop to do the conversions on the fly to the printer (Source Space is your RGB Working Space, Print Space is the profile for output). It's that easy.

--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Tony Terlecki57518]

I'm sure choosing monitor ICC as your working space is not the
right thing to do. And you are right - Photoshop’s factoring
in monitor profile somewhere along the way.

It's a VERY bad idea!

Come on Andrew, you can do better than that. Explain why! I'd do it myself but it's 3am here and I need some sleep.

Tony

 

[Mike 40sw]

I also would like to know why it's a bad idea to set the working space to your calibrated monitor profile. On the other hand, I am confused in the sense that if the monitor is supposed to show what's going out to paper, shouldn't the working space be set to the printer/document profile?

I don't understand how PS7 makes the link between monitor and output.

Right now, I have Working Space set to my calibrated monitor profile, Color Mgt. to "No Color Controls", and the Printed Space to the desired paper ICC profile. I am getting great printouts. BTW, I do convert any embedded image profile (when I open the file) to working RGB.

I'm sure choosing monitor ICC as your working space is not the
right thing to do. And you are right - Photoshop’s factoring
in monitor profile somewhere along the way.

It's a VERY bad idea!

Come on Andrew, you can do better than that. Explain why! I'd do it
myself but it's 3am here and I need some sleep.

Tony

 

[Michael Harkavy]

Well, it depends on which nutrition book you read. Some say breakfast. Some say lunch ... and some say none at all.

Now I just read that you set gamma to 1.8, even on a PC. Keeping score now I think I'v got 3 saying 1.8 and 2 saying 2.2.

Sorry for the sarcasm.

However, I've read somewhere (wish I could remember) that the PS7
workspace = monitor profile is not optimal. The monitor profile
needs to be in the list of profiles and either Windows or Adobe
will find it and factor it in. I wonder if anyone can bring more
light to this.

The images from my D1x are imbedded with the Adobe RGB 1998
profile. There's more gammut with that profile, right? What would
converting it to the PS7 workspace = monitor profile do? Would it
not narrow the gammut?

So, what do you set the PS7 workspace to. Or is it just ignored
because it's only useful in some other kind of color management
scheme? We have "No color management" set anyway. Heck, I'm just
going around in circles with this.
-michael

http://www.photoexpert.epson.co.uk/UK/EXPERTISE/how_to_icc_page1.htm
as you can see it is quite different from what, I suppose, is a
common setup while printing from photoshop. just look at the source
space: untaggedRGB.
I'm going to try it later.
is anyone has any thoughts on this?

The setup this site shows is okay but with what I consider one
important ommission - the monitor profile in the Working Space> RGB
of Photoshop's Color Settings dialog. When you calibrate your
monitor with Adobe Gamma or another hardware/software package the
profile created should be selected in Photoshop's Working
Space> RGB. This site shows Adobe RGB (1998) which is okay if you
have not calibrated your monitor. Which is a big no-no if you are
serious about color fidelity from camera to print.

My setup: D1x (shoot in JPEG fine/RGB); Macintosh PBG3 w/Photoshop
6.0; Lacie Electron Blue III (calibrated w/Lacie Blue Eye
hardware/software); Nikon View 4 (Xfer images from CF to Mac);
Epson 1280 (HWM paper).

When you calibrate your monitor you should give the newly created
profile a unique name (mine is Lacie Blue Eye) for easy
recognition. Be sure to set your monitor to the new profile. Then
launch Photoshop, go to Edit> Color Settings and under Working
Spaces click on RGB: and select the new monitor profile. Click on
Gray: and set to Gray Gamma 1.8 (Mac) - do not worry about CMYK or
Spot settings. Under Color Management Policies turn everything off

• be sure Profile Mismatches: Ask When Opening is checked. Under

Conversion Options set Engine to Adobe (ACE) - I believe the Apple
Engine settings are if you used Colorsync to calibrate your
monitor. Set Intent to Perceptual (you can experiment with this
selection). Check both Use Balck Point Compensation and Use Dither
(only for 8-bit images).

When an image is opened in Photoshop it is an Untagged RGB - the
D1x cannot embed a profile (that is done in later Photoshop). The
JPEG selected in the camera is a file type(as opposed to TIFF or
RAW); RGB selected in the camera is only the color space used to
capture the image data. Make all image corrections (crop, levels,
etc.) and before selecting print go to Image> Mode> Convert To
Profile. In the dialog the Source Space/Profile should show your
monitor profile. In the Destination Space/Profile select your
printer model and paper type. Click OK.

The printing instructions shown on the site page should provide you
with very good/excellent results. I use the advanced settings with
No Color Management selected.

Hope this helps and I haven't screwed up anything. ;-)
--
Have a great day,
Roger

My humble gallery: http://www.pbase.com/light_n_dark

--
http://www.harkavy.com

--
http://www.harkavy.com

 

[Andrew Rodney]

The setup this site shows is okay but with what I consider one
important ommission - the monitor profile in the Working Space> RGB
of Photoshop's Color Settings dialog. When you calibrate your
monitor with Adobe Gamma or another hardware/software package the
profile created should be selected in Photoshop's Working
Space> RGB.

No, that's not how it works (or should). Your display profile has only ONE role; for previewing files through working and output spaces. By setting your display profile as a Working Space, you insure that any file you create in Photoshop (or any untagged file) is assumed to be your display which clearly it is not. By using your display profile, you make Photoshop behave as it did in version 4 and older (throw RGB numbers to the screen).

This site shows Adobe RGB (1998) which is okay if you
have not calibrated your monitor. Which is a big no-no if you are
serious about color fidelity from camera to print.

No, Adobe RGB is a fine (and very good) Working Space and the fact that you have your display profiled and calibrated or not is moot here (everyone should have their display calibrated).

Photoshop always looks at some display profile (it might be right, it might be wrong) but Photoshop is always using this display profile for preview purposes only.

Then
launch Photoshop, go to Edit> Color Settings and under Working
Spaces click on RGB: and select the new monitor profile.

No, the display profile is being used and there is no need to do this.

Under Color Management Policies turn everything off

That's REALLY bad advice! You are now insuring that untagged files or files that do not confirm to your (in your case wrong) Working Space are not honored. When a user provides you a file in say Adobe RGB, they did so for a reason! You WANT to honor that embedded profile.

I believe the Apple
Engine settings are if you used Colorsync to calibrate your
monitor.

No, that is the engine for doing conversions (RGB to CMYK, CMYK to CMYK, RGB to RGB etc).

When an image is opened in Photoshop it is an Untagged RGB - the
D1x cannot embed a profile

Because the software is so stupid! It should. All input devices should. Plenty do. So you need to TAG the untagged file properly on open. Or use the Assign Profile command (that's what it's there for).

In the dialog the Source Space/Profile should show your
monitor profile.

No, you should not be limiting the file to the confines of a display which a digital capture really isn't anything like.

Hope this helps and I haven't screwed up anything. ;-)

Sorry but a good deal of your advice is screwed up. You really need a better handle on how Photoshop's color architecture works (and why). You need to understand the role of the display profile and a Quasi independent colorspace (editing space) like Adobe RGB.

Go to the web page below and read up on how Photoshop operates (start with version 5.0 and move forward). You are going to great lengths to hose the advantages of Adobes color architecture and make Photoshop operate like a rather dumb, non ICC savvy application.
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Andrew Rodney]

Below are screen shots of four Win2K, PS7 print workflow dialog
boxes. From what I've been reading, the settings in all four must
be correct. Is this true or is it only three?

The settings are bad! Make your life easy. Use the preset named "U.S. Prepress" and you're done in this dialog. It plays NO role in preping files for output! Having the warning check boxes off is a very bad idea for all but the most advanced users who know what is going on here. Clearly, many people here providing advice are not in that camp.

Your color settings control what Photoshop does when it makes a new file. It controls what Photoshop does when you open an untagged file. It controls what Photoshop does when you do an RGB to CMYK conversion using just "Mode Change" and it controls what and how Photoshop warns you about files that do not fit into the conditions in this dialog. Otherwise, the settings play NO role in what happens when you take your nice RGB file and try to output it to your Epson. None at all. Get past the color settings. It's not the problem (or solution) in this case.

--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[rogerb]

What a struggle! Huh, Michael? I didn't mean to imply that my setup is the optimum - more that it is the best I have thus far come across. I know it flies-in-the-face of many articles stating the Working Space should be device-independent. However, those articles do not clearly explain (at least for me) why the Working Space should be device-independent.

Hey, thanks you guys for trying to work through this. Roger has
been quite helpful. As he suggested I switched the workspace from
Adobe RGB 1998 to my monitor profile, which I generated in the
Adobe gamma utility. In both cases the prints turned out well, but
a little darker than what I saw on the screen.

The Adobe Gamma utility is not the greatest means of monitor calibration as I'm sure you know. It is highly subjective on your visible determination of the RGB values which determine how your monitor displays nuetral colors. This article provides some insight to the limitations of Adobe Gamma: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration.htm

However, I've read somewhere (wish I could remember) that the PS7
workspace = monitor profile is not optimal.

Many articles state that. This is one: http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7-colour/ps7_1.htm

The confusing part is they do not explain clearly why not. In this same article the author states that color is device-dependent. Would it not seem logical to view your image in the color space your monitor (device) can display? Perhaps the reason for device-independent preference is that monitors and their ability to display color tend to degrade with use. I would certainly like further clarification on this.

The monitor profile needs to be in the list of profiles and either Windows or Adobe
will find it and factor it in. I wonder if anyone can bring more
light to this.

But how?

The images from my D1x are imbedded with the Adobe RGB 1998
profile. There's more gammut with that profile, right? What would
converting it to the PS7 workspace = monitor profile do? Would it
not narrow the gammut?

You are not converting it just viewing it.

So, what do you set the PS7 workspace to. Or is it just ignored
because it's only useful in some other kind of color management
scheme? We have "No color management" set anyway. Heck, I'm just
going around in circles with this.

If you mean "No Color Management" set in the printer dialog this prevents the printer from color managing the print. If you are speaking to the Color Management Policies in Photoshop's Color Settings this prevents changing the image profile when it is initially opened.

-michael

Hang in there Michael.
--
Have a great day,
Roger
My humble gallery: http://www.pbase.com/light_n_dark

 

[Andrew Rodney]

I don't understand the reasoning for having your monitor profile as
your working space. The whole idea of working space is to have a
device-independant space, so you can look on the very same data on
your machine as I have it on mine, rather then me looking at
"Roger's monitor".
I think we have some confusion here btwn working space and icc
profile.

You are absolutly correct! You get it. The person who recommends using a display profile as a Working Space doesn't get it.
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Andrew Rodney]

The Woking Spaces menu is IMHO worthless and only serves to
confuse. I have no idea why Photoshop lists all of the "profiles"
it does since they should know more than anybody that monitor
profiling is an important step (the first critical one) to maintain
color fidelity throughout the workflow. And none of the "profiles"
in the list accurately represent your monitor.

Because they are NOT SUPPOSED TO! These are editing spaces. You don't edit in your display space.

In the Color Settings dialog you have the RGB in Working Spaces set
to Adobe RGB (1998). This indicates you do not have a unique
profile for your monitor unless you used the Adobe Gamma utility
and did not provide the profile with a unique name. So, if you
haven't calibrated your monitor do this first.

That's not at all true. The display profile is being used. Go into the Color Settings. Click on RGB. Move to the TOP of the list. You'll see a listing called "Monitor:XXX" where XXX is the name you provided for your profile. This SHOWS that Photoshop is seeing the profile correctly and using for preview. You do NOT SET THE DISPLAY PROFILE HERE! Photoshop will list the display profile it is using for preview purposes which is the only role for the dispaly profile.

And if you use Adobe
Gamma (or any profiling hardware/software package) give it a unique
name (i.e., Michael's Monitor Profile).

Therefore you'll see "Monitor:Michael's Monitor Profile" in the list but you do NOT pick it. Photoshop lists this so you can see what profile it is using for preview. It's possible to go into the Display control panel (on the Mac) and over-ride the correct display profile. This would affect ALL ICC savvy applications using the profile for preview as Photoshop does. That's why Adobe lists it. It's a quick dignoistic to allow a user to see that yes indeed, Photoshop is finding and using the correct display profile. Again, DO NOT Pick this.

Once you have done so be
sure your monitor is using the newly created profile. I'm not sure
if your monitor will automatically convert to the new profile or if
you have to enter a monitor dialog to assign it (this is foreign
territory for me on a pc). Sorry.

Photoshop behaves identicall on all platforms as far as color (and just about everything else).

Under Color Management Policies set RGB to OFF - this give you full
control of color management.

Just the opposite.

The settings you have in Conversion Options is good. You can play
with the Intent setting to see which gives the best results.

Not until you actually do a covnersion (too late) and ONLY for RGB to CMYK conversions!!!

The way to really do this is using Convert to Profile command in which case, what you have set in Color Settings doesn't matter (you pick the intent in the Convert to Profile dialog). Intent in Color Settings has NO role except when you do an RGB to CMYK conversion and you don't use "Convert to Profile" (Mode change instead).

--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Andrew Rodney]

Come on Andrew, you can do better than that. Explain why! I'd do it
myself but it's 3am here and I need some sleep.

Every monitor is different. Even the same display from the same manufacture on the same day will be different. If you profile your display and edit in that space, you insure that EVERY user applies different corrections to the same file. Chaos. Now, you use the profile instead for preview only. Your files are all in Adobe RGB 1998. We now draw a line in the sand. Photoshop does an on the fly conversion from the working space to the display for preview only. The numbers in the file stay the same. If your display is 8 units bluer then mine, but your accurate profile for your display knows this, Photoshop compensates the preview 8 units more yellow. NOw what I see and what you see are the same and the numbers are the same.

OK, we decide to edit in our display space instead. Now every stinking user who has a display different then mine sees a different preview and we all edit the file based on science fiction.

RGB Working Spaces are all "Quasi-Device Independent" colorspaces. Adobe RGB isn't based on any display on the planet. It's totally synthetic. But when 1000 users all bring the same file into Photoshop in that space, all the numbers are the same AND each of the 1000 displays are different but... Photoshop compensates each users display so we all see the same file,. EVEN if I'm on a Mac with a 1.8 gamma and you're on a PC with a 2.2 gamma.

Editing in a display space throws this all away. It’s why preview in dumb applications (like web browsers and scanner drivers that don’t understand ICC profiles) don’t match Photoshop and why their previews are simply not correct.

If you need more, go to the URL below and start reading.
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[rogerb]

Yuri, Michael,

How do you humbly remove your foot from your mouth? Ouch!! Kindly forgive me for adding to your confusion - it was not my intent. I only expressed to you what was working well for me. I guess the important thing here is we attracted someone that can ably clarify the issues we have all been struggling with. Good luck with your efforts.

Andrew,

Thank you for coming to the rescue - your comments have clarified some confusion and perhaps one day we (the uninformed) will have the understanding you have mastered. I have read many of your articles but as I said in some of the posts the reasons provided by various authors are often vague, different, anI as you pointed out totally misleading (I.e., Epson).

I'll keep trying. Thanks again.

--
Have a great day,
Roger
My humble gallery: http://www.pbase.com/light_n_dark

 

[Michael Harkavy]

Roger,

I'm still confused, but a little less so! ;o) Like I said your adviced worked for me but I should start reading digtaldog and better understand myself how it all works for more consistent and even better output.

-michael

Yuri, Michael,
How do you humbly remove your foot from your mouth? Ouch!! Kindly
forgive me for adding to your confusion - it was not my intent. I
only expressed to you what was working well for me. I guess the
important thing here is we attracted someone that can ably clarify
the issues we have all been struggling with. Good luck with your
efforts.

Andrew,
Thank you for coming to the rescue - your comments have clarified
some confusion and perhaps one day we (the uninformed) will have
the understanding you have mastered. I have read many of your
articles but as I said in some of the posts the reasons provided by
various authors are often vague, different, anI as you pointed out
totally misleading (I.e., Epson).

I'll keep trying. Thanks again.

--
Have a great day,
Roger
My humble gallery: http://www.pbase.com/light_n_dark

--
http://www.harkavy.com

 

[rogerb]

Roger,
I'm still confused, but a little less so! ;o) Like I said your
adviced worked for me but I should start reading digtaldog and
better understand myself how it all works for more consistent and
even better output.

-michael

Same here (confused that is). I have read much of what Andrew has written on his site (and will read again) and even have Digital Dog in my favorites list as I visit there from time to time. It was good of him to chime-in and attempt to put us on the right track. He is certainly very much recognized for his knowledge. I have seen him get involved in these issues in the past which is extremely gracious of him.

Good luck in your endeavors.

--
Have a great day,
Roger
My humble gallery: http://www.pbase.com/light_n_dark

 

[Mario Burgos]

Rodney,

I appreciate your time in answering my reply.

When I say senseless I don't mean to say that Color Management is senseless. It was a tough matter in the darkroom and it is a tough matter in the digital darkroom as well.

It is senseless because you can read many books and go to forums, or even try to make your best effort to put things together and still be confused.

I think the reason is in that neither Epson or Photoshop have a clear documentation on the subject. Manufacturers just throw the ball and they don't seem to care.

I think I understand the matter of Color Management. I have gone to every site that I know about, including yours. It's all makes sense.

The problem is in the mechanic. what settings go where.

Have you read the Spyder's documentation?. Horrendous!. You keep chasing your tail because the pofile is based on an scanner image that by itself has its own color bias. I was with the tech support step by step over the phone for about one hour. According with them I was doing everything right. I still cannot get the printer output to match my screen.

I even believe that paying 100 bucks for a good profile is worthy every penny if somebody explains to me why even with the spyder, the Nikon View shows me a perfect gray in my monitor (also perfect when measured with Nikon eye dropper) and as soon as I import the picture into the photoshop it turns bluish, contrasty and dark. So, to compensate it I need to Add 25 Yellow + 5 green + (Minus 10 Contrast) + 20 Brightness, a huge correction.

I even volunteered with Colorcal to make a document to explain the correct setup and how the profile could be used in Photoshop, providing, of course, that they would lead me to resolve my own problem with their documentation. They declined the offer.

There is a site I think in Englad that has lots of tutorial in color management and specific subjects such as, how to print in photoshop using 1280 and other specific matters. Still, the match between the printer and the screen is as elusive as ever.

There is a thread here in DPREVIEW where a couple of guys who seem to know photoshop are volunteering to answer specific questions about (again) the mechanic.

this is a good step in the right direction.

All related issues around color management, specially the printing
process is convoluted and senseless.

Convoluted? Yes in a way. You have to understand that BOTH
Photoshop and the Epson driver can control color managmement and
you need to be darn sure you have one or the other set properly.
Epson doesn't expect you to HAVE to use Photoshop to color manage
it's output so they provide tools in the driver.

Sensless, no way. If you want the best quality output that also can
be soft proofed on screen, you have to use ICC profiles. In fact,
Photoshop CAN'T be used without color management (unless you want
to continue to run PS4).
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[ltrainer]

Questions:
If you want to use your own developed profiles, what should the
settings be like in PS7?

Forget the color settings, they will not be a factor here.

Method one. Use Convert to Profile. Photoshop does an RGB to RGB
conversion where the first is your RGB Working Space (Adobe RGB,
ColorMatch RGB etc). The 2nd is the "Print Space" (your Epson
profile). File is ready for output. Key here is NOT doing a double
dose of profiling which will hose the output. So when you print,
Document Space in the print dialog will show "Epson RGB" (whatever
name the profile was that was used above). Print Space should be
set to SAME AS SOURCE!!!!! That tells Photoshop to pass the data
through to the printer.

Method two. Use the profile for your printer in Print Space! This
tells Photoshop to do the conversions on the fly to the printer
(Source Space is your RGB Working Space, Print Space is the profile
for output). It's that easy.

--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

--

Andrew,

I'm sure you can help me here. I'm using PS 7.0. The images from my unprofiled camera come into PS as sRBG as it reads the exif from the camera. I leave that sRGB as the profile for my file. My color space that I recently started using is Adobe RGB. Is this right to do?

When I print I use sRGB as my source and the epson profiles for which ever paper I am using as output ie. SP2200 luster paper, then "no color management" inthe epson driver.

I am also confused inthe "Convert to profile" and "Asign Profile." Not sure how they differ and their functions.

TIA,

Laurin

http://www.laurintrainerphotography.bigstep.com

 

[Andrew Rodney]

When I say senseless I don't mean to say that Color Management is
senseless. It was a tough matter in the darkroom and it is a tough
matter in the digital darkroom as well.

No question, Color Management needs to be easier. It's getting there...

I think the reason is in that neither Epson or Photoshop have a
clear documentation on the subject. Manufacturers just throw the
ball and they don't seem to care.

Adobe stopped making good manuals for Photoshop after version 1.0.7 (when there were no books out and you HAD to read the manual - RTFM). Real World Photoshop is the book. Soon the Bruce Fraser will have a "Real World Color Management" out which should help a great deal.

Have you read the Spyder's documentation?. Horrendous!. You keep
chasing your tail because the pofile is based on an scanner image
that by itself has its own color bias. I was with the tech
support step by step over the phone for about one hour. According
with them I was doing everything right. I still cannot get the
printer output to match my screen.

Scanner based profile packages are hit or miss. A scanner isn't a spectrophotometer so it makes a LOT of guesses.

I even believe that paying 100 bucks for a good profile is worthy
every penny if somebody explains to me why even with the spyder,
the Nikon View shows me a perfect gray in my monitor (also perfect
when measured with Nikon eye dropper) and as soon as I import the
picture into the photoshop it turns bluish, contrasty and dark.
So, to compensate it I need to Add 25 Yellow + 5 green + (Minus 10
Contrast) + 20 Brightness, a huge correction.

Likely because the Nikon software isn't ICC aware. I hear lots of people tell me they work in one piece of software, then bring the files into Photoshop and they don't match. IF you have tagged files and a good display profile, what Photoshop is showing is correct. This goes back that AWFUL advice to use your display profile as a Working Space. Too many products provide untagged files and don't use the display profile for previews. So they are just wrong when showing you a preview on screen. Photoshop is right (when you don't do dumb things like set your individual display profile, not a Working Space profile in your color settings).

I had far too many arguments yesterday over email with a fellow who wrote an article that says Photographers SHOULD use their display profiles as a Working Space. I kept asking him why it was an advantage to insure that every untagged file opened in Photoshop will preview differently on each users display despite the fact that the numbers on all users files are the same. I'm still waiting for him to figure it out and tell me.

There is a lot of agreement on how things should work by most color experts, Adobe, and other 3rd party companies that correctly deal with color. Unfortunately, now and again, someone just doesn't understand the process and writes an article that is just full of inaccuracies and a bunch of people read it and set the cause back. What can you do?

I even volunteered with Colorcal to make a document to explain the
correct setup and how the profile could be used in Photoshop,
providing, of course, that they would lead me to resolve my own
problem with their documentation. They declined the offer.

Kind of dumb if you ask me.

There is a site I think in Englad that has lots of tutorial in
color management and specific subjects such as, how to print in
photoshop using 1280 and other specific matters. Still, the match
between the printer and the screen is as elusive as ever.

You have to get to the root of the failure. It's like a chain; weakest link and all that. It could be the display profile. It could be the output profile. It could be a bit of both. It will take testing with the same profile on other systems or different output profiles on the same system to narrow down the failure.

Another thing must users don't seem to consider: Lighting! You really need a D50 light box with a dimmer (so the box isn't too bright compared to the display). GTI makes a great unit that isn't too expensive. Most photographers have transmissive light boxes but few reflective. It's really important.

--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Andrew Rodney]

I'm sure you can help me here. I'm using PS 7.0. The images from my
unprofiled camera come into PS as sRBG as it reads the exif from
the camera. I leave that sRGB as the profile for my file. My color
space that I recently started using is Adobe RGB. Is this right to
do?

OK, is the camera really providing you sRGB or is it the fact that the EXIF data in the file says this? One issue is that many camera manufacturers place "sRGB" EXIF tags in the files if for anything to make Microsoft happy and get a nice certificate. But they may not be really providing you sRGB. In fact, I suspect no camera on the planet is really providing sRGB (or Adobe RGB) but hopefully they are close enough so you don't need a custom camera profile (which is ideal).

On some cameras, you CAN tell the camera to shoot into Adobe RGB. But the boneheads who make the products do not embed an actually ICC profile in their files. What happens is you open the file in PS7 and the EXIF data says to Photoshop the file is sRGB when in fact it's not. This is new behavior in PS7 which unlike other versions of Photoshop didn't read the EXIF tags. So there is a new plug in that Adobe shipped with 7.0.1 that turns this behavior off so you always get an untagged file (Photoshop reports it's untagged).

What you can do is this. Shoot something with known color like a Macbeth color checker. Open the file on you calibrated display (with the color settings set with sRGB as your RGB Working Space, all warnings on, Preserve on). The file is untagged but now Photoshop assumes all untagged files are sRGB. Does the image look good? If so, you can now assume that sRGB is what the camera is providing. If it looks bad, you'll have to go into the Assign Profile command and try a bunch of different RGB Working Spaces to get a good preview.

You can even modify a Working Space and save it out as an ICC profile to use to now assign your camera images. There is a tutorial at digitaldog.net that walks you through this step by step.

When I print I use sRGB as my source and the epson profiles for
which ever paper I am using as output ie. SP2200 luster paper, then
"no color management" inthe epson driver.

That sounds OK. But there is a NEW PDF on the Service Page of the dog web site that shows all the possible ways to use profiles with the Epson for PS5 through 7.

I am also confused inthe "Convert to profile" and "Asign Profile."
Not sure how they differ and their functions.

Assign profile changes the meaning of the numbers. Convert to Profile changes the numbers (and the meaning). Again, look at the PDF's that cover Assign verses Convert. Assign doesn't change the file at all! The numbers are not affected. But Photoshop looks at the numbers based on the profile and with that information, decides how to preview (and ultimately convert) the file. Again, if you understand the process, you'll understand why you should never use a display profile as a Working Space.
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Michael Harkavy]

I find it curious about having the scanner in the equation. I posed such a question in another thread concering Mike Chaney's PP software. I'm not arguing one way or another because I'm not yet studied enough iin this area. But, as you say, having the scanner in the loop would seem to add another layer of variables to the equation, as if there weren't enough already. So what gives with the the scanned color chart? I'm already doubtful about a profiling technique that requires a scanner for digital camera images. Maybe a scanner is not required but I have not heard yet.

I appreciate your time in answering my reply.

When I say senseless I don't mean to say that Color Management is
senseless. It was a tough matter in the darkroom and it is a tough
matter in the digital darkroom as well.

It is senseless because you can read many books and go to forums,
or even try to make your best effort to put things together and
still be confused.

I think the reason is in that neither Epson or Photoshop have a
clear documentation on the subject. Manufacturers just throw the
ball and they don't seem to care.

I think I understand the matter of Color Management. I have gone
to every site that I know about, including yours. It's all makes
sense.

The problem is in the mechanic. what settings go where.

Have you read the Spyder's documentation?. Horrendous!. You keep
chasing your tail because the pofile is based on an scanner image
that by itself has its own color bias. I was with the tech
support step by step over the phone for about one hour. According
with them I was doing everything right. I still cannot get the
printer output to match my screen.

I even believe that paying 100 bucks for a good profile is worthy
every penny if somebody explains to me why even with the spyder,
the Nikon View shows me a perfect gray in my monitor (also perfect
when measured with Nikon eye dropper) and as soon as I import the
picture into the photoshop it turns bluish, contrasty and dark.
So, to compensate it I need to Add 25 Yellow + 5 green + (Minus 10
Contrast) + 20 Brightness, a huge correction.

I even volunteered with Colorcal to make a document to explain the
correct setup and how the profile could be used in Photoshop,
providing, of course, that they would lead me to resolve my own
problem with their documentation. They declined the offer.

There is a site I think in Englad that has lots of tutorial in
color management and specific subjects such as, how to print in
photoshop using 1280 and other specific matters. Still, the match
between the printer and the screen is as elusive as ever.

There is a thread here in DPREVIEW where a couple of guys who seem
to know photoshop are volunteering to answer specific questions
about (again) the mechanic.

this is a good step in the right direction.

All related issues around color management, specially the printing
process is convoluted and senseless.

Convoluted? Yes in a way. You have to understand that BOTH
Photoshop and the Epson driver can control color managmement and
you need to be darn sure you have one or the other set properly.
Epson doesn't expect you to HAVE to use Photoshop to color manage
it's output so they provide tools in the driver.

Sensless, no way. If you want the best quality output that also can
be soft proofed on screen, you have to use ICC profiles. In fact,
Photoshop CAN'T be used without color management (unless you want
to continue to run PS4).
--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

--
http://www.harkavy.com