Color Shift between Photoshop & JPEG.. why?

Ian Lyons said:

Ian Lyons said:

Turn off your colormanagement in the Photoshop 6 preferences.

Click to expand...

That would be a really silly thing to do. Yes it will mean the
image will appear the same inside and ouside of Photoshop, but that
doesn't make it right.

The differences that are being observed are down to nothing more
than the the simple fact the image in Photoshop is being edited in
a colour space that is different from the monitor colour space. The
differences are normal. If it is absolutely essential that the
image appears the same in and out of Photoshop then the user has
two basic choices.

1. Edit the image in their normal working space within Photoshop,
but make a duplicate and convert it to the monitor colour space and
save the duplicate with the monitor profile embedded. Then save the
original with the normal working space profile. This means they
have the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

I prefer to work in the monitor color space. The only time I find it necessary to tag an image with another profile is when I'm sending the image to another printer. I create the image in the monitor color space and save and print it within that space. When an image will be going to my press shop that uses a Lightjet, I tag it with that shops Lightjet profile.

Ian Lyons said:

2. Set Photoshop to use the monitor profile as the working space
instead of the more normal Adobe RGB, sRGB, etc and edit the image
as normal. This method has the drawback of making the images device
dependent.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I do. After all, one is working within the limitations of the monitor and the Adobe Gamma is configured with that device. I've found this method to be the only solution with my system. In addition, I use that monitor profile as my source for my Epson 1280 to get it's info from. Prints match as close to perfect as any method I've used.

Ian Lyons said:

Ian

Click to expand...

If you are only going to print, does this mean you should use the printer icc to define the working color space within Photoshop? In my case that would mean using the "hp deskjet series colorsmart driver"? If so, does this mean I should also use this driver as the one for the colormanagement of the printer properties as well, or leave it on "none"?
thanks
Steven

Rob Patterson said:

Ian Lyons said:

Member said:

Turn off your colormanagement in the Photoshop 6 preferences.

Click to expand...

That would be a really silly thing to do. Yes it will mean the
image will appear the same inside and ouside of Photoshop, but that
doesn't make it right.

The differences that are being observed are down to nothing more
than the the simple fact the image in Photoshop is being edited in
a colour space that is different from the monitor colour space. The
differences are normal. If it is absolutely essential that the
image appears the same in and out of Photoshop then the user has
two basic choices.

1. Edit the image in their normal working space within Photoshop,
but make a duplicate and convert it to the monitor colour space and
save the duplicate with the monitor profile embedded. Then save the
original with the normal working space profile. This means they
have the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

I prefer to work in the monitor color space. The only time I find
it necessary to tag an image with another profile is when I'm
sending the image to another printer. I create the image in the
monitor color space and save and print it within that space. When
an image will be going to my press shop that uses a Lightjet, I tag
it with that shops Lightjet profile.

Member said:

2. Set Photoshop to use the monitor profile as the working space
instead of the more normal Adobe RGB, sRGB, etc and edit the image
as normal. This method has the drawback of making the images device
dependent.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I do. After all, one is working within the
limitations of the monitor and the Adobe Gamma is configured with
that device. I've found this method to be the only solution with my
system. In addition, I use that monitor profile as my source for my
Epson 1280 to get it's info from. Prints match as close to perfect
as any method I've used.

Member said:

Ian

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Steven Dawson said:

If you are only going to print, does this mean you should use the
printer icc to define the working color space within Photoshop? In
my case that would mean using the "hp deskjet series colorsmart
driver"? If so, does this mean I should also use this driver as
the one for the colormanagement of the printer properties as well,
or leave it on "none"?
thanks
Steven

Click to expand...

In the color settings for Photoshop I use the monitor profile for my color space. Some say this isn't a color space. However it is. You'll find the monitor profile you created in the drop down list. Your monitor profile describes a gamut (range) of colors just as sRgb, Adobe 98, and others do.

Once your monitor profile is setup for your color space you'll be asked whether you want to assign that color space when you open a file. Tag it with that profile (monitor profile). If you've loaded it, it'll be there in the dialog box when you open the file.

When you get set to print, the first window that opens will have two sets of fields at the bottom. If you've loaded your monitor profile as your working color space, it'll be there and checked. This window is a part of the Adobe Photoshop program. Not the print driver. It is here where the difference between accuate colors that were created or adjusted in the file are made or broken when sent to the printer.

The set of fields in this photoshop window is essentially asking you for the info that the printer will be looking at to get it's color information. Make sure your monitor profile is loaded here also.

The last line has a number of options. I have relative colormetric. Perceptual is another option amongst several as a second choice.

From here, you'll hit the setup button. Not at the driver yet. When you hit the properties button, you will have arrived at your print driver as always. However if you don't have your working color space assigned exactly the same all the way down the line in Photoshop, the printer will be grasping at info that may not coincide with what you percieved on the monitor.

I'm not familiar with Hewette's driver but because the monitor profile is an ICC profile, I would check ICM or ICC in your driver. The actual profiles in your driver that the printer has control of is the paper profiles. Each paper handles differently so they need minus or plus amounts of each ink to EQUAL the info the printer is getting it's info from. That info comes from Photoshop and the working color space your've assigned. Don't miss that first window. Make sure the printer is looking at Adobe's working color space (your monitor profile). Make sure you tag your document with that monitor profile. Then, and only then will all the info be understood by the printer. The only problem you have to resolve for accurate prints at this point would be the paper profiles.

I personally don't recommend downloading others profiles. There are so many variables. The chances of them working with your system are slim and none. There's a color management system known as Postscript. That's one of the main ones Industry uses. That system would allow one to send a file from San Francisco to Chicago and it'd print the same on both the San Francisco printer and the Chicago printer. Encapsulated Postscript Files. Just a bit of info that may be intersting. You need a printer that could run a postscript driver. Only necessary if your working accross many servers and workstations.

Timo (and any one else nice enough to answer thee questions), Thanks again for your help, I am closer than ever to understanding this.

But, of course I have a question or two.

I know our eyes are very accurate and sensitive measuring devices, do you think wit your charts I can get as good of a calibration as a monitor puck? I am begining to think your chart can do this, although there is a lot of room for user error.

And if I understand this one I think I may have finaly gotten a deeper understanding of profiles. If I have a properly calibrated monitoor and I assign my monitor space as my photoshop working space, I won't need a profile for their printer because they say they will apply their profile to my images before printing! Does this make sense? It seems to make sense to me. My calibrated monitor gives them all the info they need to make a print for me because they just convert my images to their printers space.

One more if you please. If I have a well calibrated monitor, can I use a different working space in photoshop, suc as SRGB or adobe RGB and send the lab my files with that working space embedded, and still have the prints look like my monitor? and if so, how do I know that photoshop has embedded this profile, is it automatically embedded when saved in photoshop after opening it in a certain working space?

Thanks again

Soren

Soren Coughlin-Glaser said:

do you think wit your charts I can get as good
of a calibration as a monitor puck?

Click to expand...

Yes, using the chart with AdobeGamma you'll get similar or most often more accurate calibration.

Member said:

If I have a properly calibrated monitoor and I assign my
monitor space as my photoshop working space,

Click to expand...

It is not good practice to use the system space as the working space. It nullifies the ICC color-managment in large portion.

Member said:

I won't need a profile for their printer because they say
they will apply their profile to my images before printing!

Click to expand...

Yes, when you workflow is ICC color-managed and the lab/printer is ICC color-managed too and they/it obeys the embedded profile then yes you can simply send your original files to the printer.

Member said:

If I have a well calibrated monitor, can I use a different working
space in photoshop, suc as SRGB or adobe RGB and send the
lab my files with that working space embedded, and
still have the prints look like my monitor?

Click to expand...

Ineed this is so (provided that you have use a lab who obeys the embeddded profile) and now the ICC color-management works using its full power. The choise of the working-space is yours and this choice affects strongly to the achievable image quality. Please take a look at some comparisions between AdobeRGB and AIMRGBpro workflows http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gie/index.htm you will be amazed about the difference!

Member said:

and if so, how do I know that photoshop has embedded
this profile, is it automatically embedded when saved in
photoshop after opening it in a certain working space?

Click to expand...

Firstly, if the statusbar is not visible at the bottom of the Photoshop main window do Window/ShowStatusbar. Then click the black triangle in the StatusBar and select DocumentProfile, from now on the StatusBar show the name of the ICC profile that is embedded to the image in the active image window.

Secondly go to Edit/ColorSettings and in the ColorManagementPolicies section set all the three drop-downs to "PreserveEmbeddedProfiles" and mark/tick all the three check-boxes.

Then in the Save dialog, in the SavingOptions section you have the Color options, always mark/tick the ICC Profile check-box.

Timo Autiokari

timo thanks! I will go read through that thread.

Timo Autiokari said:

BA said:

Most everything I read says for print calibrate to gamma 1.8 and
for general web work calibrate to gamma 2.2 Also, I was under
the impression 1.8 was Mac gamma and 2.2 was the default
Windows gamma.

Click to expand...

Just recently I wrote a lenghty article about this to the
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop Usenet goup:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=i3dpqtcua141fv2uqgvj32ar35s58v5ejo%404ax.com
could you please read it from there, rather indepth discussiion and
there is also an interesting link about color-managemnt in general.

Timo Autiokari said:

Now I am seeing that you should actually set the
gamma to 2.6 (with adobe gamma tool).

Click to expand...

To 2.5.

Timo Autiokari said:

What gives you the best mix for web and
print when working on photos.

Click to expand...

The system gamma (set by AdobeGamma) is another issue than the
working-space gamma inside Photoshop. In well behaving ICC
color-managed system there is no reason to set the system gamma to
any other than what is close to the native CRT behaviour.

Also the Web is full of gamma 2.5 systems and images that have
file-gamma 2.5. So it is good to keep the system there, close to
the native gamma of the CRT, 2.5.

Then what working-space is to be used inside Photoshop, for Web
images, for print work or for film work that is another issue, and
is not related or does not depend on the system gamma space anymore
since Photoshop separates the system gamma from the working-space
gamma properly and fully (less the slope-limiting issues). I use my
AIMRGBpro space for all the work, for a very good reason.

Timo Autiokari said:

Also, this is the first I've read that you should choose
the trinitron phosphorus...I know for a fact my monitor
it not a trinitron monitor (trinitron monitors have a horizontal
gray line across them that you can see).

Click to expand...

The phosphor's set called Trininitron is completely another issue
from the mask technology that is also called as Trinitron. Like
Ford as a car and Ford as a person.

Timo Autiokari said:

I may well be able to calibrate my monitor pretty well
without having to buy expensive hardware calibration solutions.

Click to expand...

Indeed you can, actually much better since the vision is an
extremely good measuring equipment in certain type of comparisons,
some 500 times better than the best measuring devices are. Btw on
my site there is also a very accurate procedure for calibrating the
whitepoint (color-temperature) of the montitor visually, using the
most accurate daylight reference that there can even be and it is
free.

Timo Autiokari

Click to expand...

Timo,

What working space would you suggest for D-30 files, of people, on my mac/triniton system, for images being sent to the Frontier printer. After talking with different photographers I recently heard something interesting...... For files of people (wedding and portraits mostly) that srgb is actually a very pleasing working space that does not oversaturate skin tones, much like working with professional lower contrast print film. Do you see a big problem with this working space, I have noted that adobe rgb gives a "flourescent" tone to my subjects skin.

Please pardon my typing skills, I am always writing with mt three week old son in one arm, (and I have that notoriously tiny keyboard that came with the G4)

This talk would be really usefull to most readers of these forums, should it be in a new thread?

Thanks,
Soren Coughlin-Glaser
http://www.portlandphotographer.com

I notice through these threads it is reccomended to calibrate your monitor in Adobe Gamma to 2.5 with a color temp of 6500. After starting to go through your site this raises 2 questions. You site seems to suggest calibrating to a gamma of 1.0. So which should it be I would think 2.5 since my PC is not strictly for printing and digital imaging I use it for a ton of other things and you mentioned that gamma 1.0 will cause some browsing problems.

Also, when calibrating color temp it seems most monitors are set to 9300 are you saying the monitor needs to be set at 6500 and then in the adobe gamma tool it is also set at 6500...or just leave the monitor setting at 6500 and change to 6500 in the adobe gamma tool then adjustment same as hardware.

Timo Autiokari said:

SeanO said:

why, on my own system, within photoshop, I
cannot save a picture as a jpeg and get the
same colors.

Click to expand...

The reason for this is that the gamut that your system has (out of
Photoshop) is the native gamut of the CRT monitor and that is most
often the phosphors set called the Trinitron. Nothing changes that
on-the-fly yet, AdobeGamma only calibrates the gamma.

Then inside Photoshop you are working in a fully color-managed
working-space that has another gamut than the Trinitron and
possibly another gamma than what your system is set to.

Saving directly from that, without converting, creates the errors
you see, due to teh gamut differences.

Timo Autiokari said:

The fact that I can try two things that gives me same colors
in and out of Photoshop (1. convert to my monitor's ICC
profile before save,

Click to expand...

Yes, then Photoshop converts the data to your system space. But
this is not a good way to do it. The one that I earlier posted is
good, please try it.

Timo Autiokari said:

or 2. change the Proof Setup option to Monitor RGB while
working in Photoshop

Click to expand...

If you look closely enough you will find that this optinon is not
accurate either (brings the difference smaller however). But this
is not the awy to go either.

Tiimo Autiokari

Click to expand...

BA said:

I notice through these threads it is reccomended to calibrate your
monitor in Adobe Gamma to 2.5 with a color temp of 6500. After
starting to go through your site this raises 2 questions. You site
seems to suggest calibrating to a gamma of 1.0. So which should it
be I would think 2.5 since my PC is not strictly for printing and
digital imaging I use it for a ton of other things and you
mentioned that gamma 1.0 will cause some browsing problems.

Click to expand...

With ICC color-managed editing workflow (like the Photoshop 6.0.x with AdobeGamma is) there is no reason what so ever to set the system to other than 2.5 as one can use linear workflow inside Photoshop. The levels range is compromized when the monitor is forced (by the lookup-up-tabes in the display driver card) to another gamma space that it natively has.

Without the ICC color-management workflow the system itself has to be linearly calibrated in order to enable linear workflow.

BA said:

Also, when calibrating color temp it seems
most monitors are set to 9300

Click to expand...

They are not set to any color-temperature. The native color-temperature that monitors have (when all the red, green and blue CCT settings in the Custom Color Temperature -section in the monitors menu are set to maximum, to 100%) is rather high (severely bluish) but this very bad situation for digital imaging.

We need to have D6500K (natural daylight) whitepoint, then the RGB code R=G=B=255 (most intense white) gives the daylight white, and that white is the most common intense white that there is in our photographs.

BA said:

are you saying the monitor needs to be set at 6500

Click to expand...

Yes.

BA said:

and then in the adobe gamma tool it is also set at
6500...

Click to expand...

It is not set there, instead in the "Color Temperature Hardware" entry YOU tell to Adobe Gamma what is the color-temperature that the monitor actually has.

BA said:

or just leave the monitor setting at 6500 and
change to 6500 in the adobe gamma tool then
adjustment same as hardware.

Click to expand...

The "Color Temperature Adjusted" entry in AdobeGamma does affect (does change) the displayed color-temperature. But it is much better to adjust the color temperature of the monitor by its hardware controls (it is an anolog change) and specify that in the "Color Temperature Hardware" entry. The "Color Temperature Adjusted" does what it does in the digital domain so levels range is compromized.

Timo Autiokari

Thanks for the reply Timo seems I learn something everytime I read your posts. I have found that when I set my monitor to 6500 nothing really looks white at all...it looks more yellowish. I also checked and it seems all my monitors I have a lot come preset at 9300. So I am guessing to actually get a white instead of a yellowish look it would be a custom setting...or I am just used to looking at monitors at 9300 and the bright white I am used to there makes the 6500 white look dingy yellow.

Timo Autiokari said:

BA said:

I notice through these threads it is reccomended to calibrate your
monitor in Adobe Gamma to 2.5 with a color temp of 6500. After
starting to go through your site this raises 2 questions. You site
seems to suggest calibrating to a gamma of 1.0. So which should it
be I would think 2.5 since my PC is not strictly for printing and
digital imaging I use it for a ton of other things and you
mentioned that gamma 1.0 will cause some browsing problems.

Click to expand...

With ICC color-managed editing workflow (like the Photoshop 6.0.x
with AdobeGamma is) there is no reason what so ever to set the
system to other than 2.5 as one can use linear workflow inside
Photoshop. The levels range is compromized when the monitor is
forced (by the lookup-up-tabes in the display driver card) to
another gamma space that it natively has.

Without the ICC color-management workflow the system itself has to
be linearly calibrated in order to enable linear workflow.

Timo Autiokari said:

Also, when calibrating color temp it seems
most monitors are set to 9300

Click to expand...

They are not set to any color-temperature. The native
color-temperature that monitors have (when all the red, green and
blue CCT settings in the Custom Color Temperature -section in the
monitors menu are set to maximum, to 100%) is rather high (severely
bluish) but this very bad situation for digital imaging.

We need to have D6500K (natural daylight) whitepoint, then the RGB
code R=G=B=255 (most intense white) gives the daylight white, and
that white is the most common intense white that there is in our
photographs.

Timo Autiokari said:

are you saying the monitor needs to be set at 6500

Click to expand...

Yes.

Timo Autiokari said:

and then in the adobe gamma tool it is also set at
6500...

Click to expand...

It is not set there, instead in the "Color Temperature Hardware"
entry YOU tell to Adobe Gamma what is the color-temperature that
the monitor actually has.

Timo Autiokari said:

or just leave the monitor setting at 6500 and
change to 6500 in the adobe gamma tool then
adjustment same as hardware.

Click to expand...

The "Color Temperature Adjusted" entry in AdobeGamma does affect
(does change) the displayed color-temperature. But it is much
better to adjust the color temperature of the monitor by its
hardware controls (it is an anolog change) and specify that in the
"Color Temperature Hardware" entry. The "Color Temperature
Adjusted" does what it does in the digital domain so levels range
is compromized.

Timo Autiokari

Click to expand...

Soren Coughlin-Glaser said:

What working space would you suggest for D-30 files

Click to expand...

1. shoot & acquire 16-bit/c RAW images.

2. assign the D-30 linear RAW profile (this is free, downloadable from a Web page of one of the forum members (seems that I have lost the address, could someone please post it).
3. convert to AIMRGBpro
4. edit and save as original

Then:

For ICC color-managed printer the original goes as is.

For Web (and for customers who has uncalibrated PC system) convert to nativePC profile, drop to 8-bit/c and save as JPEG.

For customers who have uncalibrated Mac system convert to nativeMAC profile, drop to 8-bit/c and save as JPEG.

Member said:

of people, on my mac/triniton system,
for images being sent to the Frontier printer.

Click to expand...

The choise of working-space with Photoshop 6.0.x is free from the system hardware profile and from the printer. Naturally you need to have a good ICC profile for the Frontier.

Member said:

After talking with different photographers I recently
heard something interesting...... For files of people
(wedding and portraits mostly) that srgb is actually
a very pleasing working space that does not oversaturate
skin tones, much like working with professional lower
contrast print film.

Click to expand...

This is not the way ICC color-managment should be used.

Naturally the RGB codes do appear differently in one ICC space than in another, but they appear correctly only in one particular space.

When the ICC space is simply selected like that, sentimentally, then one image can possibly appear pleasantly but with another image there can be terrible difficulties with hue-errors or -cast etc. In one scene there can be wastly diffrent set of colors than in another, some set of colors may not show the errors very strongly but another set of scene colors may produce perceptually very large errors, because the colormetry is not correct.

Member said:

Do you see a big problem with this working
space, I have noted that adobe rgb gives a
"flourescent" tone to my subjects skin.

Click to expand...

sadRGB has similarly small gamut as AppleRGB, Colormatch, Trinitron and all the small gamuts that try to approximate the gamut of the native CRT.

Digital imaging with a larger gamut device like the D30 is (when linear RAW is used) suffer from small working-space gamut when the scene has strongly saturated colors, e.g some flowers can lose surface detail completely. In a larger working-space this can be addressed in processing or one can use the perceptual rendering intent in color-conversions for automatic gamut compression/mapping so that such detail are not lost even after conversion to Web.

Also printing wide gamut image to an ICC color-managed printer will most often produce far higher quality images than prining a copy of it that has already been squeezed into a small gamut.

Timo Autiokari

BA,

thank you. Usually the preset are way incorrect, one really has to use the Custom Color Tempearture -section.

There are either three (red, green and blue) controls or only two (what is "miissing" varies, it is internally at max).

If there are three controls then the end situation must be such that at least one of them is at maximum, else the max lightness of the monitor is compromized.

1. to start, set all the controls to max,
2 assess the color of white (by first adpating to the natural daylight),
3. make corrections and if not good white jumpt to 2.

Sketching the tri-chromatic gamut in your mind will help:

R - C
G - M
B - Y

Change to one causes reverse change to the other on the same row or causes change to the same direction to those two on the other column that are not on the same row.

Timo Autiokari

Timo Autiokari wrote:
Forgot to specify the linear mode, step 2 should be:

Timo Autiokari said:

2. acquire in linear 16-bit/c mode and assign the D-30 linear RAW profile

Click to expand...

Timo Autiokari

That sounds good, I'll try it, but what about those times when I am working with a jpg file from the camera. Should I use your native mac profile, even with calibratng to your gamma 2.5 chart? I opened your aimpro profile and it just washes everything out, I assume that is because I calibrated my monitor to your gamma 2.5 chart and the aim pro profile is at gamma 1.0?

I think i am understanding color management better now, thank you, but what your different profiles are meant to do hasn't quite sunk in.

Soren

Timo Autiokari said:

Timo Autiokari said:

2. acquire in linear 16-bit/c mode and assign the D-30 linear RAW profile

Click to expand...

Timo Autiokari

Click to expand...

Hello Soren,

If you follow the 16-bit/c linear RAW workflow then nothing will wash out.

The JPEGS have some kind of monitor compensation buried in them and in addition the D30 varies its characteristics by shot-to-shot basis, it looks at the histogram of the taken image and then does some adaptive tweaking over that. I've found that with D30 JPEGS the following workflow is rather good:

1. Open JPEG.
2. Assing Apple RGB or nativeMAC.
3. Convert to 16-bit/c mode.
4. Convert to AIMRGBpro.
5. edit and save as original.

Member said:

I opened your aimpro profile and it just washes everything out, I
assume that is because I calibrated my monitor to your gamma 2.5
chart and the aim pro profile is at gamma 1.0?

Click to expand...

So, you assigned the AIMRGBpro to a JPEG image, yes then the image will appear washed out. But It is not because of your system calibration being at 2.5, it is because the JPEG has a file-gamma and the AIMGBpro is a linear (gamma 1.0) working-space.

You need not to worry about the system hardware or caibration being at gamma 2.5 (or for that matter at what ever gamma) it is well set now and it does not affect in any way to what you do/acquire/etc inside Photoshop. Photoship separates the system or hardware calibration from its working-space inside Photoshop.

Timo Autiokari