Photoshop 6 and unprofiled cameras

Steve Short · Dec 19, 2001

I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles, presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only, neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

henri56123 · Dec 19, 2001

Only camera's have special color space come with icc profiles for conversion to a "working space"; other DC's use sRGB as the camera working space and can be used without conversion (lot of people don't like that complicated icc stuff); however, those sRGB standard spaces in camera's, monitor's etc... are mostly "more or less" and give at best 80 % results; so using deducated profiles can still give superior results (color, shadow detail etc...); I 'm not sure about the Olympus but I guess that for the Fuji you should be able to find icc profiles on the net (like there are for the D30 as well); there is also software that allows you to make deducated camera profiles
henri

Steve Short said:
I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has
an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my
understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm
wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it
appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as
Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles
for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles,
presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their
camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only,
neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

-- Pluche

JW55541 · Dec 19, 2001

I'm no technical expert, but I've found that profiling my camera, calibrating my monitor, and using ICC profiles in my workflow have been a great help toward my getting consistent results from digital camera to printing press, just as standardizing on film, developer, paper, etc. were important to getting predictable results in traditional photography. Without a camera profile, you're starting with an unknown variable in your workflow, and as with all digital processes: garbage in = garbage out !

Each camera's CCD is different, even in same model cameras, so generic profiles aren't the best way to go. To build a custom profile for any camera. you'll need the old Macbeth Color Checker card and some profiling software, such as ICC Dcam, which is a plugin for Photoshop. I have successfully profiled my D1X using this software, and it does help produce predictable results. I suggest you try http://www.profilecity.com/ to find out more about camera profiling and the ICC workflow.

Other useful information on ICC profiles and Color Management can be found on Andrew Rodney's excellent website at http://www.digitaldog.net/ . ICC profiles may appear to be intimidating at first, but they aren't all that difficult to learn and they are a necessity for all digital pro's.

JW

Willie G. · Dec 20, 2001

Just a suggestion. Only use Adobe RGB for printing to digital devices (inkjet, digital press). And if it looks too muddy, try sRGB.

For strictly monitor display, use sRGB.

For cmyk separations, use Color Match or Apple RGB... or even sRGB. But avoid Adobe RGB like the plague...

And for serious press work, tweak your profiles in the dot gain dialog curve in Photoshop

)Have fun,

Willie

Steve Short said:
I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has
an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my
understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm
wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it
appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as
Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles
for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles,
presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their
camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only,
neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

--Willie G.Kulmbach. GermanyCanon G2 http://www.pbase.com/effzee

Jan Roovers · Dec 21, 2001

henri said:
Only camera's have special color space come with icc profiles for
conversion to a "working space"; other DC's use sRGB as the camera
working space and can be used without conversion (lot of people
don't like that complicated icc stuff); however, those sRGB
standard spaces in camera's, monitor's etc... are mostly "more or
less" and give at best 80 % results; so using deducated profiles
can still give superior results (color, shadow detail etc...);

THANKS!
YOUR REMARK HELPED ME!

I have tried out the difference in Photoshop applying sRGB colorprofile and applying 'no colormanagement" in Photoshop. I found out that without applying colormanagement I got better shadow detail on my screen and on my printer !

I found out that sRGB was the closest match, but my experiment showed clearly that the profile of my cam was wider and since now i have the better shadowdetails i was looking for.

I felt that my cam could do better but I was not able to find the right profile.

I think the screen and the printer have enough spare to take advantage of the original colorprofile which seems to be different (in my case wider then) the sRGB colorprofile.

( I use a HP 970 printer with sRGB profile; in Photoshop now i choose as printer profile: "same as source" and not "sRGB")

I think that it is better to edit the picture in his own colorprofile when the profile is not explicitly defined. It is likely that it differs a bit from the sRGB.

So thank you for finding this result! You solved my problem !

I would like some feedback from other digcam holders with a cam from wich the colorprofile is not expilictly defined. Have you come to the same experience as I did?

Jan Roovers

I 'm

henri56123 said:
not sure about the Olympus but I guess that for the Fuji you should
be able to find icc profiles on the net (like there are for the D30
as well); there is also software that allows you to make deducated
camera profiles
henri

Steve Short said:

I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has
an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my
understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm
wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it
appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as
Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles
for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles,
presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their
camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only,
neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

Click to expand...

--
Pluche

henri56123 · Dec 21, 2001

Go to http://www.hutchcolor.com - under "Free" you can download profiles; there is one series of 6 profiles (i believe it is called wirephoto) that is really intended to be used as "camera" profiles; the 6 orofiles differ in gamma going from 1 to 3 whereby the 1.8 to 2.6 seems to mlore usefull; download and copy in the color profiles directory; when opening a camera pic ddin Photoshop us embed profile ... (one of the 6) and convert to working space; the one with gamma 1;8 give lighter photos, the 2.2 and 2;6 more contrast; I've tested these on somle older jpeg's from my prevoious camera (Ol 2500) and it worked fine
Henri

Steve Short said:
I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has
an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my
understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm
wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it
appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as
Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles
for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles,
presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their
camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only,
neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

-- Pluche

stanton · Dec 22, 2001

Yesterday I had the opportunity to play a bit with an Oly D-40. When I opened an image it obviously gave me obligatory color profile options. So, I dutifully selected "No Color Management". The images looked beautiful on the screen. I wouldn't want to change a thing. BUT since I don't want to change a thing, NOW I want to be able to manage the color. I not only want to leave it alone, but want to make sure it doesn't change when sent to various output devices.

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Would that not assure that when passed from ICC device to ICC device, the images could be maintained as they are??? Or, would this totally screw up what look to be really nice images?

TIA,

henri said:
Steve Short said:

I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has
an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my
understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm
wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it
appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as
Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles
for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles,
presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their
camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only,
neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

Click to expand...

--
Pluche

henri56123 · Dec 22, 2001

Hi Stanton: if you want to make some experiments: make a copy of you orginal camera pics to save somewhere and make a second copy to experiment; I little bit further down this thread I made a suggestion for interesting experiment;

However this color management with profiles can only work if everything has proper profiles and if you use PS 5 or 5.5 you have to set monitor compensation on !
Henri

Stanton said:
Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and
put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Would that not
assure that when passed from ICC device to ICC device, the images
could be maintained as they are??? Or, would this totally screw up
what look to be really nice images?

TIA,

henri said:

Steve Short said:

I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has
an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my
understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm
wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it
appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as
Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles
for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles,
presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their
camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only,
neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

Click to expand...

--
Pluche

Click to expand...

-- Pluche

Jan Roovers · Dec 22, 2001

Stanton said:
Yesterday I had the opportunity to play a bit with an Oly D-40.
When I opened an image it obviously gave me obligatory color
profile options. So, I dutifully selected "No Color Management".
The images looked beautiful on the screen. I wouldn't want to
change a thing. BUT since I don't want to change a thing, NOW I
want to be able to manage the color. I not only want to leave it
alone, but want to make sure it doesn't change when sent to various
output devices.

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and
put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Would that not
assure that when passed from ICC device to ICC device, the images
could be maintained as they are??? Or, would this totally screw up
what look to be really nice images?

TIA,

I am afraid that it will. I guess that the colorprofile of our digicams is not to be fit in a trianglewise defined colorprofile as Photoshop does.

Therefore I think editing in the original profile will give better results. The final result can hopefully be catched in a standard (triangle) colorprofile.

If you don't change a thing (which i often don't need to do), then we have to take advantage of the spares in the device colorprofiles such as the screen and the printer.
I am not an expert. May be someone have a better advice.
But so far it works.

I would apreciate to see one of your original pictures to watch yr difference. Maybe we can exchange a pic by email?
[email protected]

Jan Roovers

stanton said:
henri said:

Steve Short said:

I have an Olympus 3030z and a FujiFilm S1 Pro. Neither camera has
an ICC profile. The more that I use Photoshop 6, the better my
understanding of a fully color profiled workflow is. So now I'm
wondering... If neither camera has an ICC profile, is it
appropriate/safe to assign it to a standard ICC pofile such as
Adobe RGB.

I know that DDI Software (the makers of QImage) sell ICC profiles
for both cameras but as the manufacturer's didn't supply profiles,
presumably they felt that they weren't necessary - i.e. that their
camera's output complied with an existing color space. Only,
neither camera's manual indicates what this color space is.

Any ideas ?

Click to expand...

--
Pluche

Click to expand...

stanton · Dec 22, 2001

Jan Roovers said:
Member said:

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and

put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Or, would this totally screw up
what look to be really nice images?

TIA,

Click to expand...

I am afraid that it will. I guess that the colorprofile of our
digicams is not to be fit in a trianglewise defined colorprofile as
Photoshop does.
Therefore I think editing in the original profile will give better
results. The final result can hopefully be catched in a standard
(triangle) colorprofile.

Since there is no original profile, my thought was to simply "assign" the working profile, hoping all would be well and translate correctly from then on.

Member said:
If you don't change a thing (which i often don't need to do), then
we have to take advantage of the spares in the device colorprofiles
such as the screen and the printer.
I am not an expert. May be someone have a better advice.
But so far it works.
I would apreciate to see one of your original pictures to watch yr
difference. Maybe we can exchange a pic by email?
[email protected]

Alas, I did not save any images from that set. I just wanted to see what the camera would do. I can borrow it again and do some serious experimentation. I have to tell you, the quality of the images were such that were such a camera to be in the hands of a wedding guest, woe be to the wedding photographer.

Regards,
Stanton

Ron Hildebrand · Dec 22, 2001

Stanton said:
I not only want to leave it
alone, but want to make sure it doesn't change when sent to various
output devices.

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and
put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Would that not
assure that when passed from ICC device to ICC device, the images
could be maintained as they are???

I don't know, Stanton, this is where I get confused in color management, but what you propose makes sense to me.

For instance, if you open a source file that has, say Adobe RGB as its assigned profile, and your working space is Adobe RGB, everything should look correct, because the source profile and working space match. If you open a source file with an unknow profile and it looks wrong, then you know it isn't an Adobe RGB file, and that the source file and working space do not match each other.

But if the unknown file looks right in the Adobe RGB working space, then the unknown source of the file would have to be either Adobe RGB or something very, very close. Therefore, if you go ahead and tag the file with Adobe RGB, you should maintain that look wherever you use the Adobe RGB space.

I've never had to assign or convert- for film based images, my lab scans and assigns their preferred profile, and I just work the files in that space, and send 'em back for printing. The only other source files I've had in my system have been either D1x or 760 tagged files. But my limited knowledge of this part of color management tells me this is correct. But the operative phrase here is "limited knowledge"!

--Ron

Jan Roovers · Dec 23, 2001

Stanton said:
Jan Roovers said:

stanton said:

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and

put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Or, would this totally screw up
what look to be really nice images?

TIA,

Click to expand...

I am afraid that it will. I guess that the colorprofile of our
digicams is not to be fit in a trianglewise defined colorprofile as
Photoshop does.
Therefore I think editing in the original profile will give better
results. The final result can hopefully be catched in a standard
(triangle) colorprofile.

Click to expand...

Since there is no original profile, my thought was to simply
"assign" the working profile, hoping all would be well and
translate correctly from then on.

stanton said:

If you don't change a thing (which i often don't need to do), then
we have to take advantage of the spares in the device colorprofiles
such as the screen and the printer.
I am not an expert. May be someone have a better advice.
But so far it works.
I would apreciate to see one of your original pictures to watch yr
difference. Maybe we can exchange a pic by email?
[email protected]

Click to expand...

Alas, I did not save any images from that set. I just wanted to see
what the camera would do. I can borrow it again and do some serious
experimentation. I have to tell you, the quality of the images
were such that were such a camera to be in the hands of a wedding
guest, woe be to the wedding photographer.

Regards,
Stanton

I have been experimenting some more and found out that assiging "simplified sRGB IEC61966-2.1"as the colorprofile and NOT sRGB IEC61966-2.1 gives the same satisfying results (in my case)!

For Internet and general exchange I open in simplified sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and convert in 16 bit to sRGB and saveguard the result in the oficial sRGB standard.

I have not yet experimented with changing the colortemperature within this profile. Ir mat be a help for to blue or to tellow/red pictures.

I was surprised and started surfing to find the difference between the two colorprofiles. So far i have not found it. May be somebody on the forum can tell me?!

What i found was the next remark: http://www.webdesignguiden.com/dsigningforum/display.asp?messageNo=3&threadID=140

which gives me reason to experiment again. If it is interesting, I will let you know.
Jan Roovers

Jan Roovers · Dec 23, 2001

Jan Roovers said:
Stanton said:

Jan Roovers said:

Member said:

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and

put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Or, would this totally screw up
what look to be really nice images?

TIA,

Click to expand...

I am afraid that it will. I guess that the colorprofile of our
digicams is not to be fit in a trianglewise defined colorprofile as
Photoshop does.
Therefore I think editing in the original profile will give better
results. The final result can hopefully be catched in a standard
(triangle) colorprofile.

Click to expand...

Since there is no original profile, my thought was to simply
"assign" the working profile, hoping all would be well and
translate correctly from then on.

Member said:

If you don't change a thing (which i often don't need to do), then
we have to take advantage of the spares in the device colorprofiles
such as the screen and the printer.
I am not an expert. May be someone have a better advice.
But so far it works.
I would apreciate to see one of your original pictures to watch yr
difference. Maybe we can exchange a pic by email?
[email protected]

Click to expand...

Alas, I did not save any images from that set. I just wanted to see
what the camera would do. I can borrow it again and do some serious
experimentation. I have to tell you, the quality of the images
were such that were such a camera to be in the hands of a wedding
guest, woe be to the wedding photographer.

Regards,
Stanton

Click to expand...

I have been experimenting some more and found out that assiging
"simplified sRGB IEC61966-2.1"as the colorprofile and NOT sRGB
IEC61966-2.1 gives the same satisfying results (in my case)!

For Internet and general exchange I open in simplified sRGB
IEC61966-2.1 and convert in 16 bit to sRGB and saveguard the result
in the oficial sRGB standard.

I have not yet experimented with changing the colortemperature
within this profile. Ir mat be a help for to blue or to tellow/red
pictures.

I was surprised and started surfing to find the difference between
the two colorprofiles. So far i have not found it. May be somebody
on the forum can tell me?!
What i found was the next remark:

http://www.webdesignguiden.com/dsigningforum/display.asp?messageNo=3&threadID=140
which gives me reason to experiment again. If it is interesting, I
will let you know.
Jan Roovers

Testing with a Kodak colorpatch did confirm that my colors were about 10% better defined without changing the saturation. The result is better depth and better shadow detail.

Jan Roovers · Dec 23, 2001

Jan Roovers said:
Stanton said:

Jan Roovers said:

Member said:

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and

put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Or, would this totally screw up
what look to be really nice images?

TIA,

Click to expand...

I am afraid that it will. I guess that the colorprofile of our
digicams is not to be fit in a trianglewise defined colorprofile as
Photoshop does.
Therefore I think editing in the original profile will give better
results. The final result can hopefully be catched in a standard
(triangle) colorprofile.

Click to expand...

Since there is no original profile, my thought was to simply
"assign" the working profile, hoping all would be well and
translate correctly from then on.

Member said:

If you don't change a thing (which i often don't need to do), then
we have to take advantage of the spares in the device colorprofiles
such as the screen and the printer.
I am not an expert. May be someone have a better advice.
But so far it works.
I would apreciate to see one of your original pictures to watch yr
difference. Maybe we can exchange a pic by email?
[email protected]

Click to expand...

Alas, I did not save any images from that set. I just wanted to see
what the camera would do. I can borrow it again and do some serious
experimentation. I have to tell you, the quality of the images
were such that were such a camera to be in the hands of a wedding
guest, woe be to the wedding photographer.

Regards,
Stanton

Click to expand...

I have been experimenting some more and found out that assiging
"simplified sRGB IEC61966-2.1"as the colorprofile and NOT sRGB
IEC61966-2.1 gives the same satisfying results (in my case)!

For Internet and general exchange I open in simplified sRGB
IEC61966-2.1 and convert in 16 bit to sRGB and saveguard the result
in the oficial sRGB standard.

I have not yet experimented with changing the colortemperature
within this profile. Ir mat be a help for to blue or to tellow/red
pictures.

I was surprised and started surfing to find the difference between
the two colorprofiles. So far i have not found it. May be somebody
on the forum can tell me?!
What i found was the next remark:

http://www.webdesignguiden.com/dsigningforum/display.asp?messageNo=3&threadID=140
which gives me reason to experiment again. If it is interesting, I
will let you know.
Jan Roovers

Other results:

Printing the picture without colormanagement gives bettter results then printing the picture that was converted from simplified SRGB to Srgb.
Do we have to do with a Photoshop specific issue??

stanton · Dec 23, 2001

Ron Hildebrand said:
Stanton said:

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and
put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Would that not
assure that when passed from ICC device to ICC device, the images
could be maintained as they are???

Click to expand...

Ron Hildebrand said:
I've never had to assign or convert- for film based images, my lab
scans and assigns their preferred profile, and I just work the
files in that space, and send 'em back for printing. The only
other source files I've had in my system have been either D1x or
760 tagged files. But my limited knowledge of this part of color
management tells me this is correct. But the operative phrase here
is "limited knowledge"!

I think where the confusing part comes in is that Photoshop 6 allows your image space to be in a different space than your monitor/working space. Therefore the monitor won't always show the differences between WYS and WYG. This is one of the reasons why I always (where possible) use ICC for printing. Even if one of my images goes to another source it is always tagged with a profile. So, when sending files to my lab, I'll convert from my working space to their printer's space and get back perfect prints. When using my Epson 1280, I now use the Custom/Advanced features, indicating which paper (profile) I'm using, making sure the printer makes no color adjustments. Again, prints that are very very close to my screen previews.

So, my theory is this:. If the untagged image being viewed in a given work space looks good, theoretically, you should be able to "lock it in" by assigning the profile of your editing space. Thus, if you have to go out to printer with a radically different color space, the color numbers will then automatically be converted, and consequently an image that originally had no profile would then be blessed with one...the one that you're working in.

Thinking back to the D1 days where the images were untagged, we knew the color was awful (with jpgs) right from the camera, so we ASSUMED a profile of NTSC and then, almost automatically (sometimes skip the "almost") convert them to the working space. The working space was then the assigned space and we would print accordingly. So, how are things any different with any other camera, except that in the case of the Oly D-40, the colors look pretty good straight away, so instead of converting color space, we just assigne the one we're working in. Does that make sense, or am I off base somewhere?

Any thoughts/disagreements? Again, I'm just speculating on this workflow.

Best regards,
Stanton

henri56123 · Dec 23, 2001

Stanton said:
Ron Hildebrand said:

Stanton said:

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and
put it in whatever your working/editing space is? Would that not
assure that when passed from ICC device to ICC device, the images
could be maintained as they are???

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

stanton said:

I've never had to assign or convert- for film based images, my lab
scans and assigns their preferred profile, and I just work the
files in that space, and send 'em back for printing. The only
other source files I've had in my system have been either D1x or
760 tagged files. But my limited knowledge of this part of color
management tells me this is correct. But the operative phrase here
is "limited knowledge"!

Click to expand...

I think where the confusing part comes in is that Photoshop 6
allows your image space to be in a different space than your
monitor/working space. Therefore the monitor won't always show the
differences between WYS and WYG. This is one of the reasons why I
always (where possible) use ICC for printing. Even if one of my
images goes to another source it is always tagged with a profile.
So, when sending files to my lab, I'll convert from my working
space to their printer's space and get back perfect prints. When
using my Epson 1280, I now use the Custom/Advanced features,
indicating which paper (profile) I'm using, making sure the printer
makes no color adjustments. Again, prints that are very very close
to my screen previews.

So, my theory is this:. If the untagged image being viewed in a
given work space looks good, theoretically, you should be able to
"lock it in" by assigning the profile of your editing space. Thus,
if you have to go out to printer with a radically different color
space, the color numbers will then automatically be converted, and
consequently an image that originally had no profile would then be
blessed with one...the one that you're working in.

Thinking back to the D1 days where the images were untagged, we
knew the color was awful (with jpgs) right from the camera, so we
ASSUMED a profile of NTSC and then, almost automatically (sometimes
skip the "almost") convert them to the working space. The working
space was then the assigned space and we would print accordingly.
So, how are things any different with any other camera, except that
in the case of the Oly D-40, the colors look pretty good straight
away, so instead of converting color space, we just assigne the one
we're working in. Does that make sense, or am I off base somewhere?

Any thoughts/disagreements? Again, I'm just speculating on this
workflow.

Best regards,

Hi - generally source spaces and their profiles are not good for editing ; one coulod use the monitor profile for editing but then what you see is only valid in your computer with your present monitor; that's why there are these "device independant" working spaces like AdobeRGB etc... ; so in general if your source (a camera) has no profile it can be assumed to have an sRGB space (more or less)

To achieve maximum results with untagged pictures in Photoshop, one should assign a profile that is either exact to the camera space or very close and then convert to your working space; however sometimes directly assigning a working space like Colormatchrgb or AppleRGB or even AdobeRGB can give reasonable to good results as well
Henri

stanton said:
Stanton

-- Pluche

Steve Short · Dec 24, 2001

Stanton said:
Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and
put it in whatever your working/editing space is?

I don't think so. If the image doesn't have a profile, you've selected 'Don't color manage', and it looks reasonable on screen, that implies that its color space approximates the standard monitor color space of your computer - sRGB for PC and Adobe RGB for Mac. Note that these two color spaces represent the colors which these computers can typically display on screen - the profile is not for the monitor as such.

Note that if you've profiled your monitor then you'll have a specific monitor color profile but this just makes allowances for it's deviation from the standard monitor color space - so don't attempt to assign this profile to an image.

So, if you're going to assign a profile because the image looks right with no color management then assign sRGB (PC) or Adobe RGB (Mac) rather than your default color space (which is irrelevent at this point).

Now you can edit/print the image in that color space or convert it to another, such as your default (i.e. preferred) color space.

Note that your default color space is just that - a default. In PS6 you can work in any available color space.

FWIW - the feedback on this post and others seems to indicate that if your digital camera is not supplied with a specific profile then it is almost certainly using the standard computer color space, i.e. sRGB(PC) or Adobe RGB(Mac). This would explain why, as Stanton has found, no color management produces a good looking image on screen.

Why bother with assigning an ICC profile ? Because as soon as you want to do anything other than look at the image on screen you'll start hitting problems with the colors not being rendered correctly. Assigning an appropriate profile should minimise the problem. Also, for PC users, the sRGB color space is relatively limited and you may need to convert to a pofile with a bigger color space such as Adobe RGB which is widely used, if not actually standard, for pre-press work.

Steve Short.

Jan Roovers · Dec 25, 2001

Steve Short said:
Stanton said:

Would it not then make sense to do an "Assign Profile" command and
put it in whatever your working/editing space is?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. If the image doesn't have a profile, you've
selected 'Don't color manage', and it looks reasonable on screen,
that implies that its color space approximates the standard monitor
color space of your computer - sRGB for PC and Adobe RGB for Mac.
Note that these two color spaces represent the colors which these
computers can typically display on screen - the profile is not for
the monitor as such.

Note that if you've profiled your monitor then you'll have a
specific monitor color profile but this just makes allowances for
it's deviation from the standard monitor color space - so don't
attempt to assign this profile to an image.

So, if you're going to assign a profile because the image looks
right with no color management then assign sRGB (PC) or Adobe RGB
(Mac) rather than your default color space (which is irrelevent at
this point).

Now you can edit/print the image in that color space or convert it
to another, such as your default (i.e. preferred) color space.

Note that your default color space is just that - a default. In PS6
you can work in any available color space.

FWIW - the feedback on this post and others seems to indicate that
if your digital camera is not supplied with a specific profile then
it is almost certainly using the standard computer color space,
i.e. sRGB(PC) or Adobe RGB(Mac). This would explain why, as Stanton
has found, no color management produces a good looking image on
screen.

Why bother with assigning an ICC profile ? Because as soon as you
want to do anything other than look at the image on screen you'll
start hitting problems with the colors not being rendered
correctly. Assigning an appropriate profile should minimise the
problem. Also, for PC users, the sRGB color space is relatively
limited and you may need to convert to a pofile with a bigger color
space such as Adobe RGB which is widely used, if not actually
standard, for pre-press work.

Steve Short.

What gamma in Adobe RGB is used on the Mac?
Jan

stanton · Dec 25, 2001

Steve Short said:
Why bother with assigning an ICC profile ? Because as soon as you
want to do anything other than look at the image on screen you'll
start hitting problems with the colors not being rendered
correctly.

I see your point. But it my current workflow, I convert my working profile to my lab's Lambda profile, which yields perfect results every time. Would a simple "Convert Profile" from an untagged space yield the same results? I remember in PS 5.5, when I would convert to the Lambda space, the color would go wild and would have to use a softproof filter to get any notion of what the image in Lambda space would look like.

So, to rephrase my question, if you know you ultimately have to be in a specific, non-standard space, what do you do with the original, untagged image, providing it looks good on the screen?

Regards,
Stanton

Steve Short · Dec 26, 2001

stanton said:
So, to rephrase my question, if you know you ultimately have to be
in a specific, non-standard space, what do you do with the
original, untagged image, providing it looks good on the screen?

It appears that cameras that don't come with specific profiles are using the 'standard' computer color space which is sRGB for PCs and Adobe RGB for Macs. This explains why they look good 'as is' on the screen. So, assign the standard profile according to whether you're using a PC or a Mac and then convert to whatever color space you want.

Regards.
Steve Short.

Photoshop 6 and unprofiled cameras

Member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Jan Roovers

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Jan Roovers

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Jan Roovers

Guest

Jan Roovers

Guest

Jan Roovers

Guest

Senior Member

Leading Member

Member

Jan Roovers

Guest

Senior Member

Member

Keyboard shortcuts