Color Issues

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by marco_landini, May 17, 2010.

  1. Hello. I read a lot of post and articles about my issue, it' s well and widely discussed. But, please, keep in consideration my question, I cannot solve the problem, after I have tryed a lot of times. The same old question : my prints don' t match the images of monitor in photoshop. Also, my images, posted on web, don' t match the image of my monitor in photoshop space. My monitor is a Dell U2410, wide gamut, calibrated 100 lumen, 6500 k, gamma 2.2 ( I work in windows), calibrated with EyeOne display 2 unit. Calibrated profile always loaded automaticaly at each windows starting. This is my workflow : 1- shoot in raw. 2 convert from raw to tiff, to adobe rgb space. 3 open the tiff in photoshop. Photoshop color space = adobe rgb. 4 make all the edits in photoshop, then save the master in tiff 16 bit. 5a) duplicate the master, open a double window to compare the original and the copy, make the color proof : device to simulate : srgb color space. The proofed image doesn' t show a big difference from the master, so I edit just little adjustments to the copy. 6a) I convert to srgb color space. Reduce size. reduce to 8 bit. Save as jpeg. 7a) I post the jpeg image on web. When I look at the image on the web site or in windows viewer, it looks very reddish and oversaturated, inacceptable. It looks this bad also on other computers, with small gamut monitors too, not only on mine. The converted to srgb image seems to look ok only on my computer, ONLY in photoshop adobe rgb space...On my computer, it looks bad in all the other application than photoshop adobe rgb space...About print workflow, the same story. 5b) duplicate the master, open a double window to compare the original and the copy, make the color proof : device to simulate : kodak endura glossy (the profile of the lab contone printer) . The proofed image doesn' t show a big difference from the master, so I edit just little adjustments to the copy. 6b) I convert to the printer profile. Reduce to 8 bit. Save as tiff. 7b) the lab prints look very reddish and oversaturated. I don' t know where is the mistake, theoricaly the workflow seems to be correct. At my monitor, when I open images of other people from web sites, they all look ok, only my images look reddish. So, I suppose it' s not an issue of monitor calibration. It could be an issue of color managing, errors in profiles and color spaces conversions. But, as I said, theoricaly my workflow seems to be correct. The only way to make my converted to srgb images look acceptable is , as I read in a famous italian web editor pubblication : the color proofing in 2 steps. First, make the proofing from the original master to the final device to simulate. Then, from this first simulation result, make the second proof to simulate the calibrated monitor profile. Now, the image looks very reddish, so I can correct it by curves adjustments. Then, I convert the corrected copy to srgb color space. I load the image on web sites, and now it appears acceptable, viewed at my monitor and viewed at other computers too. The same process makes my lab printed images look more acceptable. But I know many people say that is not concectually correct to make proof simulating the monitor profile. At this point, I' m very confused. Please, let me know your suggestions, critiques, methods to solve this problem. I' m in big trouble. Thank you very much. Marco
     
  2. you did not say what you were trying to produce by going though all the pain of your workflow . . . that
    said, i use LR, shoot raw, export the format i need the images in for delivery - i.e., editorial, art, prints, and
    so on. They are "perfect" every time. . . I ONLY use LR and i calibrate with Eyeone . . . gretaqgmacbeth .
    . . . . .
     
  3. When you convert to sRGB are you selecting convert to profile or assign profile?
     
  4. Have you ever viewed your iOne created profile in Windows Color Control Panel to see if it has any obvious anomalies? Have you tried calibrating your display with a different calibration system, like Spyder3 Elite, just for the sake of comparison?
     
  5. Aferthought:
    In 5a), have you ever simply uploaded images to the web adjusted visually in Photoshop, and not softproofed against the sRGB color space? I never perform this step. I trust that my calibrated monitor profile is giving me an accurate view of the image in Photoshop. and this is what other people should see in a color managed, icc aware browser on a calibrated system.
     
  6. This workflow is not reasonable- you should not have to do all these steps just to get the color to match.
    Lets start with the web. Please post an image that looks fine to you but overly red on the web. Please post your AdobeRGB version (downsized for web) and also your final SRGB version.
    It's not surprising if this image looks oversaturated on your monitor using a non-ICC aware application.
    One other question- you're not using the "absolute" rendering intent when going from AdobeRGB to sRGB are you?
     
  7. They look terribly reddish even at the computer where I' m now, at my office at work. Monitor ctr, no calibration, srgb.
     
  8. These images all look totally fine here – it must be something at your end (display/calibration).
     
  9. All three look perfect in color managed Safari in OS 10.4.11.
    Thanks for embedding the sRGB color space before you uploaded it otherwise my browser will assign my monitor profile which makes sRGB images look slightly over saturated.
    I suspect your OS system isn't loading the correct custom calibrated display profile for Photoshop to render correct colors.
    What does a known color target like the PDI file look like? Download it from this site:
    http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/pdi_download/
    Skin tones in that target shouldn't look red. View it in both your raw converter if it can AND Photoshop.
    You need to take your workflow out of the mix to see if Photoshop AND your raw converter ARE rendering correct color by referencing the intended system display profile.
    And Windows browsers and image viewers aren't color managed so sRGB images will look over saturated and reddish on a wide gamut display.
     
  10. All images look fine here. Firefox 3.6 and in Photoshop CS3.
     
  11. The images are good.
    If you look at them using an application that doesn't use color management, the appearance will be oversaturated.
    You said you have a wide gamut monitor.
     
  12. here the converted to srgb image without proofing and without curve adjustments
     
  13. here the converted to srgb image after 2 steps proofing and relative red channel curve lowering
     
  14. this is the original adobe rgb file , not converted, the same file as my first of the 4 attachements
     
  15. this image is a scanning from a tri-x negative, edited in ps without any profile, and saved for web. no presence of any color shift. At that time, I had a cheap lcd monitor, now I have a wide gamut and trying to menage adobe rgb color workflow...I mess up a lot of things...I like this picture and I feel very frustrated not to get as correct results as before...
     
  16. this image is a scanning from a tri-x negative, edited in ps without any profile, and saved for web. no presence of any color shift. At that time, I had a cheap lcd monitor, now I have a wide gamut and trying to menage adobe rgb color workflow...I mess up a lot of things...I like this picture and I feel very frustrated not to get as correct results as before...
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/2983400425/
     
  17. Marco, I'm suspecting your monitor profile is bad. I don't what caused it, but my suggestion to test it is temporarily change your default monitor profile to the standard sRGB color space profile and see if anything improves. Maybe view your monitor profile with the Windows Color Control Panel applet and see if there any obvious anomalies.
     
  18. Marco, you're not going to get this solved until you view a known good file (PDI test target) and tell us what you see in Photoshop and your Raw converter if possible.
    The first two and fourth images of the little girl looking out the window look all the same-an overall reddish to red orange to rust compared to your edited (2 step proof, reduced red) version which looks sort of desaturated with all reds looking kind of beige to greenish brown.
    We don't know what image/scene you're referencing to tell you that image shouldn't be red. The image you posted IS red. Where are you seeing it NOT red?
     
  19. Chas, you are saying the issue is about a bad monitor profile. It may be. But can you explain me why I see my pictures , posted on web or on unmenaged utilities, so bad and all other people pictures look good ? If my monitor profile is bad, I guess also the pictures of other members should look bad as my ones at my monitor. And why my pictures look good in photoshop in adiobe rgb color space, there and only there ? This suggest me that the issue is about color space conversion...
     
  20. Tim , the point is : in a unmenaged utility, such as windows viewer , or on this post page in photonet, the only srgb converted from adobe rgb picture of the little girl that looks close to the original master in photoshop adobe rgb color space is the 3th one. You say it looks desaturated and greenish. At my monitor it looks neutral, very close to the master in photoshop adobe rgb. The other 3 pics look reddish at my monitor e so far from the original master adobe rgb.
     
  21. Marco... So I'm probably wrong... just trying to eliminate the obvious. But you should take Tim's advice and view the PDI target image. You need a standardized reference file to recognize what the problem is.
     
  22. the original master in photoshop adobe rgb color space​
    Looks correct/as it should/NOT RED/neutral like the 3rd edited version. Correct? From where did this master originate and what did it look like there BEFORE ANY EDITS? Did it originate from Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom? Was it a Raw file or jpeg straight from the camera?
    You said the final image viewed online is RED when you view it in a non-color managed browser after converted to sRGB as you've indicated viewing it posted here at PN on your wide gamut display. To add...it looks different than the master viewed in Photoshop.
    If this is correct, this is normal.
    What would NOT BE NORMAL is if the 4th non-edited and non-converted AdobeRGB original also looked red viewing in a non-color managed browser on a wide gamut display. AND if it looks IDENTICAL with regards to the level of red to the non edited sRGB converted version viewed in a non-CM browser, then something is really wrong and beyond what can be solved in a forum exchange.
    Just an afterthought, are you using Save For Web to post your images online? If so, don't use it for right now and post with a regular Save As... jpeg after converting to sRGB. SFW has settings which can screw up the preview and sometimes get folks to edit when they shouldn't. Let's keep it simple.
    And how about that PDI target? I've asked several posts back and you still haven't said how it looks.
     
  23. Marco, what do you see with the PDI image? How are the skin tones? How is the grayscale? Can you look at it in Photoshop and using your web browser? Can you convert it from AdobeRGB to sRGB and see what it looks like in PS and your browser?
    When you go to Windows/control panel/display and find the color management tab, is your correct monitor profile selected?
     
  24. Tim , the point is : in a unmenaged utility, such as windows viewer , or on this post page in photonet, the only srgb converted from adobe rgb picture of the little girl that looks close to the original master in photoshop adobe rgb color space is the 3th one.​
    There is no way to make the colors look correct in applications without color management; it is provably impossible. If you change the colors so that they look correct on one monitor, they will then look incorrect on all different monitors and all color managed applications.
    this is the original adobe rgb file , not converted, the same file as my first of the 4 attachements

    Attachment: filekIzWGi.jpg
    here the converted to srgb image without proofing and without curve adjustments

    Attachment: filecbqKby.jpg
    In Firefox 3.6, these two images look identical.
    The only thing that you are doing wrong is expecting the second of those two images not to look terrible in a web browser without color management. If you use either the latest Firefox or Safari, all images tagged with a profile will look correct on your monitor.
    7b) the lab prints look very reddish and oversaturated.​
    This is a bigger problem. It implies some problem with either the monitor and/or printer profiles, or with the way you or the photo lab are using them. Unless the photo lab asks otherwise, you might try sending them AdobeRGB images and then the color matching will be entirely under their control.
     
  25. For Tim : the master come from 1) raw shot, 2) capture nx conversion to tiff, assigning adobe rgb profile 3) I open the converted tiff on ps cs3 in adobe rgb color space and here I do all my editing and save the tiff. This is the reference picture, viewed in ps adobe rgb colorspace. I wish my picture on web and on print would look the same as this master , after srgb conversion. I never use Save For Web, I always use Save As. I posted on flickr the non converted adobe rgb master image : on flickr and it looks very different from the reddish tones of the non edited srgb converted version. Actually, it looks very very colose, if not identical, to the master viewed on ps in adobe rgb color space. And I like it very much ! So : master tiff image in ps adobe rgb space = jpg image posted on flickr without any conversion to srgb...So, why shoud I convert from adobe rgb to srgb ? If this is the real world result with consistency and if this could be also conceptualy correct, I will not convert any further...I will post anything in adobe rgb, the same color space as my ps working space.
    For Roger : I opened the link of the PDI image. On that page, when I roll the mouse over the image, I can see the huge color shift, the transition from adobe rgb to srgb, going from neutral ( adobe rgb) to reddish ( srgb). Then, I downloaded the PDI image. I opened it on ps ( in my adobe rgb working space) and the skin tones look great. I desaturated the image, and the greyscale looks good. I converted the image from adobe rgb to srgb, and no differece on ps ( adobe rgb working space). On ps the 2 versions look identical and neutral. Also on my non color menaged image viewer ( windows image viewer) the 2 images ( adobe rgb original and srgb converted) look identical among them, but both more red saturated than the 2 same images when viewed on ps. Conclusion : starting from an adobe rgb original master, the converted to Srgb version looks identical to the adobe srgb master in ps ( adobe rgb working color space). On my windows picture viewer, the non converted adobe rgb and the converted to srgb images look identical, no difference between them, but both more red saturated than the same 2 versions viewed on ps. And this is the weird news : on flickr, the non converted adobe rgb version looks identical to the non converted original master viewed on ps, as I said above to answer Tim. The converted to Srgb version, instead, on flickr looks more red saturated and very different from the original adobe rgb master viewed on ps. This is what I can see at my monitor.
     
  26. Joe, I guess you catched the point. I should better not to convert.
    This is the adobe rgb master, non converted. It looks great here at my monitor. http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4616489793/
    This is the converted to srgb version, without any proofing and without any adjustment after the proofing http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4615500993/ too red saturation
    And this is the converted to srgb version, curve adjusted after proofing before the conversion to srgb http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4616116600/ more acceptable than the above 2nd version, but too washed out and too greenish.
    About the lab, I will send them my adobe rgb files, not converted. And I will hope and pray ...
     
  27. If you have a wide gamut monitor, it is probably fairly similar to AdobeRGB. I do not recommend posting AdobeRGB images on Flickr, since most people do not use color managed web browsers or wide gamut monitors. The image will look wrong on their monitors even though it looks correct on yours.
    I recommend using tagged sRGB images for anywhere on the web.
     
  28. Joe, of the 3 pictures I posted the link just above, which one looks good or better at your screen ?
     
  29. I'm on a work laptop, so take it with a grain of salt, but the master and converted appear 100% identical using Firefox. The sRGB one is slightly washed out (undersaturated reds).
    I would send your lab only AdobeRGB if they explicitly say they can handle it. Otherwise convert to their profile or sRGB. I would also send them the PDI target as the orginal (AdobeRGB) and after you convert it to sRGB to see how they handle it and how it matches your screen.
     
  30. To me in Firefox or GIMP (I don't have Photoshop installed at the moment) the first two look identical and the third looks greener and brighter.
    It sounds as if you are viewing them with software that isn't color managed.
    What do you see if you open the exact same three files in Photoshop?
     
  31. I posted on flickr the non converted adobe rgb master image : on flickr and it looks very different from the reddish tones of the non edited srgb converted version.​
    You're viewing it in a non-color managed browser through a wide gamut display. It's not surprising it looks like the preview you get in Photoshop. The Flickr preview is the Argb numbers interpreted through your display's wide AdobeRGB-ish gamut. If you don't like the way your images look online in sRGB then view your web images in a color managed browser like Firefox.
    On my windows picture viewer, the non converted adobe rgb and the converted to srgb images look identical, no difference between them, but both more red saturated than the same 2 versions viewed on ps.​
    This means that Windows IS doing its own color management in Picture Viewer where it may be either referencing the wrong system display profile or using a color management module that's not following ICC standards.
    Just FYI, several years ago I was checking out my brother's newly acquired $500 Dell Windows XP media center bundled package with a bunch of loaded software catering to video, music, fancy cable hookups and picture in picture software and photography apps but no Photoshop. It had a video card with tons of Ram, 4GB of system Ram and on and on.
    I opened the original PDI file in Picture Viewer and low and behold the main preview was color managed (sort of) and the thumbnail on the bottom wasn't meaning (typical desaturated preview as viewed on an sRGB gamut CRT). What I mean by "sort of" is that even though the color managed preview was more saturated as expected compared to the thumbnail, the hues of the skin tones were sort of jaundice-I mean way off from what I've seen on typical non calibrated displays.
    I was viewing on a CRT back then whose native state after setting proper white balance and contrast in the OSD was pretty much within sRGB specs. The only profile loaded in Windows system Color Management panel was default sRGB. There was no way the PDI could look that way off. Something was messed up within Windows color management implementation.
    The only thing I can suggest for your Picture Viewer issue is to update your video driver if possible and get Window's latest color management module and software if it exists.
     
  32. For Joe and Roger : exactly now I' m in my office at work, I' m using now an old cheap ctr monitor, not calibrated and the browser ( explorer) is not color managed, so this is the "most people" view conditions at monitor. I' m opening the 3 images, and the situation is the same as when I open them at my calibrated wide gamut DELL at home from this page ( same as on flickr) : the first looks neutral and identical to de adobe rgb master in ps. The 2nd look too red saturated. The 3rd looks desaturated and a bit greenish. So, the files posted on flickr behave the same at this ctr non-wide gamut non-calibrated monitor in unmenaged site ( flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) , as at my home lcd wide gamut calibrated screen in unmanaged site (flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) .
     
  33. Last minute idea : I was wondering about the final solution, almost as a surrender act, to keep all the workflow in sRgb, from raw conversion to the final image for web and for print, doing also the editing in photoshop srgb space ; so, this way I won' t need to do any conversion and mess the things up with ICC profiles ecc..I will loose some dinamics and color transitions, but I will save my pictures from inconsistence in workflow. And now the ( foolish...? ) intuition about what could be wrong in my process we are discussing about in this post : it seems as I was working on photoshop editing in srgb instead adobe rgb color space, and then, when I convert to srgb, the resuling image seems a twice converted to srgb image, resulting double saturated...I set the photoshop working space to adobe rgb, but maybe the system have some issue and the real color working space is shifted to srgb for any unknown problem. Then, I add even more un-necessary saturation doing an un-necessary conversion to srgb, resulting in a double saturated final picture. Could it be so...?
     
  34. I posted on flickr the non converted adobe rgb master image : on flickr and it looks very different from the reddish tones of the non edited srgb converted version. Actually, it looks very very colose, if not identical, to the master viewed on ps in adobe rgb color space.​
    This is a confirm that you have a wide gamut monitor. More similar to Adobe 1998 than sRGB.
    So, why shoud I convert from adobe rgb to srgb ?​
    Because there are much more sRGB-like monitors than Adobe 1998-like monitors.

    Also on my non color menaged image viewer ( windows image viewer) the 2 images ( adobe rgb original and srgb converted) look identical among them, but both more red saturated than the 2 same images when viewed on ps.​
    I suppose you use Windows Picture and Fax Viewer.
    Well, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer read the ICC profile, but it transforms the image to sRGB.
    On my windows picture viewer, the non converted adobe rgb and the converted to srgb images look identical, no difference between them, but both more red saturated than the same 2 versions viewed on ps.​

    You are looking at the same sRGB image.
     
  35. So, the files posted on flickr behave the same at this ctr non-wide gamut non-calibrated monitor in unmenaged site ( flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) , as at my home lcd wide gamut calibrated screen in unmanaged site (flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) .​
    The differences between the files will always be there on different monitors with no color management. The AdobeRGB data will always be less saturated than the sRGB version and your third adjusted version will always be paler and greener. With color management enabled, the first two will look identical and the adjusted version will look wrong.
    There is no way to control what people see if they are not using color management. One person might see the image as too red, but another person with a different monitor might see it as too green.
    If the colors themselves are also identical, it is only coincidence that the monitors are similar.
    Then, I add even more un-necessary saturation doing an un-necessary conversion to srgb, resulting in a double saturated final picture. Could it be so...?​
    The conversion to sRGB is not unnecessary. What is supposed to happen is that you convert it to sRGB and then your web browser uses your monitor profile to display it correctly on your wide gamut monitor. What is happening is your browser is not doing that last step. If you do not convert to sRGB, most people browsing Flickr will see the wrong colors because their browser will not display AdobeRGB correctly on their sRGB-ish monitors.
    Again, it is impossible to do what you want, which is for the colors to always be correct everywhere even without color management.
     
  36. I agree with you all , your considerations are surely right, and I thank you very much for the help. But I' m getting more and more frustrated. Actually, this is the question that I can' t still explain and I would your final opinions about : why I see on flickr my srgb converted pictures become red , and the other members pictures look good and neutral at my monitor ? I suppose all the pictures posted by the other members are srgb converted as my ones. At my monitor the other members pics look good, instead my srgb pictures, my ones and only my ones look red...The combination monitor-browser -color profiles works well on all pictures but my ones...!
     
  37. The most likely explanation is that you have not seen the color corrected versions of all other pictures to compare them to.
    Try opening somebody else's photo in Photoshop. I suspect it will look less red than the same photo did in the web browser.
     
  38. I just viewed the three images again and the AdobeRGB and sRGB are identical and the"2 STEPS PROOFING AND CURVE ADJUSTMENTS" one is undersaturated in reds. I don't know which version is closer to your intentions, and if you only showed me one I'd think it was fine. FYI- I'm using Firefox (which is color manged) on a calibrated LCD.
    Marco, your wide gamut display is not happy with non-color managed browsers. How do your flickr images look in Firefox?
    I didn't see any gross color casts in your people series, but did notice some of the files have very weak blacks and wonder if it was intentional.
     
  39. Roger : I didn't see any gross color casts in your people series, but did notice some of the files have very weak blacks and wonder if it was intentional. They are scans from velvia slides...very deep blacks ! No color profile assigned to them.
    Marco, your wide gamut display is not happy with non-color managed browsers. How do your flickr images look in Firefox? I downloaded firefox : now, my images on flickr look good at my wide gamut monitor. And they appear the same as you said : the adobe rgb and srgb are now identical, the 2 steps adjusted one looks washed out and greenish. The adobe rgb and srgb ones both match my master picture as I see it in photoshop adobe rgb. Good ! But the trouble is not completely solved : when I see the pictures at my office ctr monitor, not wide gamut, in explorer , as I said they look red saturated and different from my photoshop master picture. This means that the problem is solved for my wide gamut monitor in firefox space. But all the other people with non wide gamut screens and unmanaged browser like explorer still continue to see my pictures, converted from adobe rgb to srgb, oversaturated.
     
  40. On my CRT with a non color managed browser (IE 8), your AdobeRGB file looks a bit undersaturated, your curves edited one looks greener and lighter and SRGB is redder. None of them match the image in Firefox.
    Personally I'd not worry too much about viewers with non calibrated CRTs using non color managed browsers. They are not likely the most critical of viewers anyway.
    I'd spend more time figuring out why the blacks are so gray in certain shots from your people gallery.
     
  41. Roger : thank you very much for your considerations and suggestions. Please, tell me : among the 3 ones, which one looks better than the others on your not managed ctr ? My people gallery : as I said, they are scans from velvia 35mm slides. I used a cheap flatbet scanner...and edited on photoshop doing minimal adjusments. The original slides also suffer because of exposure issue when I shot them. The old glory days of slide shooting...
     
  42. With a little post-processing you could get much better results from your Velvia slides. Some are underexposed slides where it looks like the scanner jacked up the exposure. That's not a terrible thing- you just need to set the black point right to darken the shadows.
    I don't know if any of the 3 look "better"- none of them match what I see in Firefox. The sRGB is too red and the others too pale. They are all reasonably close so that if I didn't know what it was supposed to look like I wouldn't notice anything was amiss (unlike your film scans where some have crushed, featureless shadows, others look washed out, and others look awesome).
     
  43. Actually, this is the question that I can' t still explain and I would your final opinions about : why I see on flickr my srgb converted pictures become red , and the other members pictures look good and neutral at my monitor ? I suppose all the pictures posted by the other members are srgb converted as my ones​
    1- Is your browser color-managed? What browser do you use?
    2- Do you embedd the sRGB profile into image? Looking at your first link it is true. But do you embed the sRGB profile at any time?
    If an image has the profile and your browser is color-managed, you get the right colors if your monitor profile is good.
    It's difficult to say if image is oversaturated intentionally or for a missing profile.
    The difference between sRGB and Adobe 1998 is not so strong.
    I'm sure many people publishe images in Adobe 1998 or worse in ProPhoto (sometimes the profile is embedded, sometimes no profile is embedded).
    The rules for web publishing are:
    1- sRGB color space
    2- embedd sRGB profile
    The rules to see correct colors are:
    1- profile the monitor
    2-use a color-managed browser and a color-managed application to see images
    Previous rules are valid for any monitor.
    If your monitor is sRGB-like sometimes you can get acceptable results without a monitor profile and without color-managed browser and applications.
    This is not the case if your monitor is wide gamut
     
  44. Honor Fabio Polenghi
     
  45. As there are not answers, I suppose you are understanding what color management is.
    In any case, as it's not the first time you ignore my posts, I'll be glad to ignore you.
     
  46. Sorry Jacopo for my late answer. You are giving me your help and I appreciate very much.
    1- Is your browser color-managed? What browser do you use? In the 7th post above , I say :
    I downloaded firefox : now, my images on flickr look good at my wide gamut monitor. And they appear the same as you said : the adobe rgb and srgb are now identical, the 2 steps adjusted one looks washed out and greenish. The adobe rgb and srgb ones both match my master picture as I see it in photoshop adobe rgb. Good ! But the trouble is not completely solved : when I see the pictures at my office ctr monitor, not wide gamut, in explorer , as I said they look red saturated and different from my photoshop master picture. This means that the problem is solved for my wide gamut monitor in firefox space. But all the other people with non wide gamut screens and unmanaged browser like explorer still continue to see my pictures, converted from adobe rgb to srgb, oversaturated.
    2- Do you embedd the sRGB profile into image? Looking at your first link it is true. But do you embed the sRGB profile at any time? The srgb is embeded any time in my srgb images, as the adobe rgb profile is embebed any time in my adobe rgb images.
    And my monitor is calibrated and the calibration is uploaded automatically at each windows start.
     
  47. But the trouble is not completely solved : when I see the pictures at my office ctr monitor, not wide gamut, in explorer , as I said they look red saturated and different from my photoshop master picture. This means that the problem is solved for my wide gamut monitor in firefox space. But all the other people with non wide gamut screens and unmanaged browser like explorer still continue to see my pictures, converted from adobe rgb to srgb, oversaturated.​
    Non-wide-gamut monitors without color management can see: about rights colors, or oversaturated colors or undersaturated colors. It depends on monitor gamut.
    The only thing you can do is: upload sRGB images and embedd color profile. This is a choise that statistically produces the better results for people.
     
  48. Hi Marco,
    This is a long shot and notice that I have little to no idea on how it works, but could it be that some of the ICC/ICM files in your system are corrupted? That might have a number of effects:
    - a corrupted file could be embedded and then some of the viewers could do no color management, do it according to the name of the profile, ot do it according the corrupted data
    - corrupted files could be used for visualisation on your computer by some programs, hence not showing the correct colors in some situations
    But maybe this is a completely foolish idea.
     
  49. Here some new informations. I' ve noticed, on B&W pictures ( not converted to "grey scale" on "image"-> "method"---> "grey scale", but converted by silver efex plugin, working in rgb space) : the b&w picture, in the original Adobe rgb working space and not converted to srgb, on the "info" palette I can read r,g, and b values all identical among them ( i.e. : r 110 ; g 110; b 110). When I convert the same picture to Srgb and I open it on PS in Srgb working space, in the "info" palette I can see different r, g, and b values, i.e. : r 110 ; g 104 ; b 100 ). This is what happens. The test on r&w pictures may be helpful, because we don' t have the disturbance of color, and we can evaluate the r, g, and b values in a simplier way. Actually, in b&W pictures, r, g, and b values must be the same ( i.e. r 200, g 200 , b 200). This happens , as it should, only on my adobe rgb pictures not convertet to srgb. Instead, on my converted to Srgb version, the r, g, and b values are not the same ( i.e. r 200, g 195, b 191). Here the color shift.
     
  50. I suppose there is some error as if you convert (110,110,100) from Adobe 1998 to sRGB you get the same (110,1110,110).
    The difference is very little (some decimals, rounded to zero).
    Adobe 1998 (200,200,200) is converted to sRGB (201,201,201).
     
  51. Ok Jacopo, you are right. But my situation is : I got Adobe rgb ( 200, 200, 200). When convert to Srgb I get 200, 195, 190.
     
  52. Which product do you use for converting?
    If your is a "simple conversion", your product make it wrong.
     
  53. I convert in photoshop, in adober rgb color space. I use edit--convert to profile----Srgb. Intent relative colorimetric, black point compensation.
     
  54. One of the two profiles is probably not what you think it is, either the sRGB or the AdobeRGB. The embedded profiles were both correct in the attached images earlier in the thread, too.
    How about posting before and after images grayscale images where this is happening? It can be just a rectangle of 110 110 110; I'm mostly interested in the embedded profiles.
     
  55. This is the b&w original image, edited in photoshop adobe rgb color space. Adobe rgb, not converted. The info palette in photoshop adobe rgb shows r, g and b values all equal among them ( i.e. : r 200, g 200 , b 200 ; r 110, g 110, b 110. ecc.. )
     
  56. This is the converted to Srgb image, converted from the above Adobe rgb original one. This converted image, in the info palette of photoshop ( now Srgb color space) , shows r, g and b values different among them ( i.e. : r 200, g 195, b 191 ; r 110, g 106, b 105 ; ecc..)
     
  57. I've opened both of your images in Photoshop and they both read R=G=B sampling all tonal regions in the info palette. They look identical as well.
    It sounds like you have a corrupted display profile. Also make sure you're not building a table based display profile in your calibration software. Matrix based is the best. Can't be sure this will fix it, but other than that I haven't clue.
     
  58. Tim : Also make sure you're not building a table based display profile in your calibration software. Matrix based is the best. I' m sorry , but I don' t know a' thing about "table based display profile" and "matrix". I just have a Dell u2410 wide gamut monitor, I calibrate it weekly by Eye One display 2. I set as target ; 6500K, 120 lumen, 2.2 gamma. And after calibration, the software says that this goal is achieved. And calibrated monitor profile is uploaded automatically at each computer start.
     
  59. I can confirm the same thing. In Lightroom or GIMP both files have equal values of red, green and blue.
    Photoshop seems to be showing you the wrong values in the info panel. Try switching between Actual Color, Proof Color, and RGB Color, and see if any of the three will show you equal R, G and B? If that isn't it, then perhaps something else in Photoshop's color settings is causing this.
     
  60. marco, locate where your profile is within your registry and do a get info to see its file size. A matrix based profile will be under 20K and a table based will be much larger like over 100K.
    But I doubt that could be the cause anyway. Just trying to cover all basis.
     
  61. One more consideration. About monitor calibration : I calibrate my wide gamut Dell U2410 by an Eye One Display 2 unit. The software is Eye One match 3. In this software, when I open the window " choose calibration settings " I use to set : white point 6500K, gamma 2.2, luminance 120. But there is one more option : "open ICC profile". Have I to select any specific profile from this option, as "wide gamut rgb", or " adobe rgb" or what else ? Or have I not to select anything from this "open ICC profile" option ?
     
  62. Again, I know very little about this, but I should think your monitor's profile would only influence what you see on the screen, not the numeric color values read by Photoshop. My bet is still that you have some damaged output profiles in your system.
     
  63. Please, can you aswer my question above about monitor calibration and eye one match 3 settings ? Thanks
    ..."I calibrate my wide gamut Dell U2410 by an Eye One Display 2 unit. The software is Eye One match 3. In this software, when I open the window " choose calibration settings " I use to set : white point 6500K, gamma 2.2, luminance 120. But there is one more option : "open ICC profile". Have I to select any specific profile from this option, as "wide gamut rgb", or " adobe rgb" or what else ? Or have I not to select anything from this "open ICC profile" option ?"
     
  64. Please, can you aswer my question above about monitor calibration and eye one match 3 settings ? Thanks
    ..."I calibrate my wide gamut Dell U2410 by an Eye One Display 2 unit. The software is Eye One match 3. In this software, when I open the window " choose calibration settings " I use to set : white point 6500K, gamma 2.2, luminance 120. But there is one more option : "open ICC profile". Have I to select any specific profile from this option, as "wide gamut rgb", or " adobe rgb" or what else ? Or have I not to select anything from this "open ICC profile" option ?"
     
  65. I confirm.
    R=G=B
     
  66. Thanks Jacopo. I must have been very tired when I wrote that the rgb values are not equal. I WAS WRONG. I checked again, and actually the rgb values are equal ( r=g=b) , both in Adobe rgb and Srgb versions. SORRY GUYS. But, can you please answer me about my above question ? : But there is one more option : "open ICC profile". Have I to select any specific profile from this option, as "wide gamut rgb", or " adobe rgb" or what else ? Or have I not to select anything from this "open ICC profile" option ?"
    Thank you
     
  67. I think that open ICC profile just uses the profile to set the targets, for example gamma or color temperature. You should not need to select anything.
     
  68. Hello guys. I checked my video board. It' s an Ati radeon 9600 series. I' ve read it' s not hte best for calibration , proviles ecc...It doesn' t support calibration profiles on the lut. Do you agree ?
     
  69. It would still be possible to have all of the necessary information in the red, green and blue tone response curves in the profile.
    I don't know if the EyeOne software does or not.
     

Share This Page