LR/PS look different on screen but same on export

Images look slightly different tone/colour wise in LR vs PS when viewed side by side. Exported they both look the same, which matches the PS version.

Monitor is calibrated with Spyder and both LR/PS are running in ProPhoto RGB.

All articles I can find seem to mention differences between v2/v4 profiles which are dated 2012ish - mine appear to be v2.4.0 - or not having PS running in ProPhoto.

Any other suggestions what could be causing this?

You MUST view images in Develop, at 1:1 or greater for proper previews and then compare that to Photoshop using the same zoom ratio. Other LR modules use a slightly different and less accurate (color matching) architecture than Develop.

Even with LR at 1:1 and PS at 100% side by sidee, I still notice a fair difference.

 

Not sure if it makes a difference, but this is a PSD being viewed through LR, although it does have a stamped layer at the top.

I see no differences in the two images in Safari.

How strange. To the me the right one looks darker and less vibrant.

How strange. To the me the right one looks darker and less vibrant.

I can only tell you what I see in a color managed browser of your posting. They appear the same. View this page on Safari.

Edited September 28, 2017 by digitaldog

I can only tell you what I see in a color managed browser of your posting. They appear the same. View this page on Safari.

 

Just downloaded Safari and it has the same problem...

What OS?

Post the images somewhere with an embedded profile.

Win10. I've exported a JPG, 100% quality. Ticked embed profile but unticked convert to sRGB. Hope that's correct for this scenario. Let me know if not. Thanks.

 

Dropbox - DSC_3908-2048.jpg

Something is very wrong with that image and it's embedded ICC profile! I get this from Photoshop:

The embedded ICC profile cannot be used because the ICC profile version is not supported. Ignoring the profile.

I assigned sRGB and saved the image. It matches in Photoshop to Safari. No problem on this end.

Something is very wrong with that image and it's embedded ICC profile! I get this from Photoshop:

The embedded ICC profile cannot be used because the ICC profile version is not supported. Ignoring the profile.

 

Odd.

 

I assigned sRGB and saved the image. It matches in Photoshop to Safari. No problem on this end.

 

For me, PS and safari are a good match, but it's LR that is slightly off. Do they both compare on your end? A bit more vibrance and slightly brighter in LR for me. I've checked that no adjustments are being applied.

PS and LR on this end, with properly embedded ICC profiles produce a visual match.

Thanks for confirming. I'll continue investigating!

Are you assigning a print or monitor profile to the image? They have the same format as sRGB et. al., but aren't interpreted properly by color management.

Are you assigning a print or monitor profile to the image? They have the same format as sRGB et. al., but aren't interpreted properly by color management.

No he's not (first, not possible in LR, 2nd, it doesn't explain the 'corrupted' embedded ICC profile that cannot be used in Photoshop; you can't open that document).

Same format?

Looking at what you posted above (two images), downloading (no embedded profile but assign sRGB), it appears that the RGB numbers in the two may be different. Hard to tell because both are one document and it's difficult to place a sample point identically in both. Upload both files separately and ensure they have a proper embedded ICC profile that you expect, perhaps sRGB for this experiment because you'll post to the web. Now maybe this silly and somewhat dysfunctional forum software is stripping ICC profiles from images posted in a message but if we know both are the same color space before hand, it will be easier to analyze what might be going on here.

I think it's the same format. You can assign a scan profile to an image, for example, in Photoshop, then "convert" to a standard color space. This is a workable procedure if your scanning software doesn't support profiles.

It's been a long day, my eyes are half asleep but I've just got home and checked this thread so have taken another look. I've done some more side by comparisons and I seem to have noticed the problems, yes, plural. Which I want to double check again tomorrow with fresh eyes, but I'm pretty certain.

 

1. Images look different on either side of my screen. However I view the file, in PS/LR as PSD or in Windows Photo Viewer/Safari as JPG. Whichever file is on the right hand side of my screen, looks much more pale and washed out. Whichever file is on the left, looks more vibrant and colourful.

 

And now I've seen this, even this page looks a warmer white on the left and a much cooler white on the right - I assume it's equal on both sides for you guys and there's not a subtle gradient?!

 

I'm shocked I didn't notice this before, I must've been opening LR on the left every time and everything else on the right when doing my previous testing. I'm even more shocked at how much of a difference there is between the two sides.

 

I wonder how much of this is to do with a physical problem with my screen, or if it's my ambient lighting. I'll test it somewhere with more even lighting.

 

2. Rather than side by side I've just had each document full screen and switched between the windows.

- PSD in PS vs same PSD in LR - Slightly more contrast/darker in PS.

- PSD in PS converted to sRGB, but not saved vs original PSD in LR - Slightly more contrast/darker in LR.

- PSD in PS converted to sRGB, and saved vs same PSD in LR - Slightly more contrast/darker in LR.

- JPG exported from PS vs JPG exported for LR - very subtle increase in vibrance on PS copy

 

Still some digging to do but the cause of the biggest difference is definitely the change in left to right of my screen.

 

As you could be curious of my setup after the first point.

Three screens. Main editing one and two rubbish square screens. I've always found the ambience from these slightly affects to the look of images but only between everything equally so not a factor in this equation.

Creamy/yellowy wallpaper (not decorated since moving in, and new office almost built, will be painted grey)

Window to my right with creamy/yellowy curtain. West facing so has a dark purple rug hanging over to block out sun.

White built in cupboards behind.

One of those horrible yellowy energy saving bulbs in the light with a pale papery globe translucent globe type lampshade.

Yes, I know it's a bad combination for editing but will be moving out of it soon and never thought it would affect images this greatly from one side to the other. Assuming that is the case once I've tested the screen.

 

I'll report back. Thanks for all your help.

 

IF images appear differently depending on what side of the display you view them, you need a new and much better display!

And yes, it's equal on this side because I'm viewing images on an NEC PA272W which is amazing purity control over the entire display.

I think it's the same format. You can assign a scan profile to an image, for example, in Photoshop, then "convert" to a standard color space. This is a workable procedure if your scanning software doesn't support profiles.

Has zero to do with the OP's issue. And in terms of format (whatever you mean by that), all ICC profiles are ICC profiles; even those that are not RGB; same 'format'. And again, there's nothing to assign in this case but there IS some embedded ICC profile that Photoshop barf's on.

Lastly, I cannot think off hand of any scanner software made this century that doesn't embed an ICC profile.

I'm using the term "format" in the generic sense - same structure* - common to ICC profiles and scanner/monitor/print profiles created through calibration. All scanner software embeds an ICC profile, but not all make use of a scanner profile. Silverfast is able to create and use scanne before embedding an ICC profile, NikonScan cannot use scanner profiles directly, but does assign sRGB or AdobeRGB as the ICC profile. With NikonScan, for example, you can "Assign" a scanner profile to the digital image, then "Convert" the image to a standard ICC profile, which anyone can read. If you don't have the original scanner profile, and that's all there is, you can't properly read the image file.

 

* A profile is basically an LUT, with 3rd order interpolation between points. 3rd order is the simplest interpolation that can match the slope of adjacent segments at the data points.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

I'm using the term "format" in the generic sense - same structure* - common to ICC profiles and scanner/monitor/print profiles created through calibration. All scanner software embeds an ICC profile, but not all make use of a scanner profile.

Not all users need to embed the scanner profile although it's not a bad idea to reduce any further color space conversions but an issue with such color spaces is they are not well behaved where R=G=B is neutral. A neutral outside a synthetic RGB working space can be very dissimilar RGB values making it more difficult for some to edit. But this really has nothing to do with the OP's issue. And no, not all ICC profiles are LUTs.

IF images appear differently depending on what side of the display you view them, you need a new and much better display!

And yes, it's equal on this side because I'm viewing images on an NEC PA272W which is amazing purity control over the entire display.

 

Yes. Definitely need a new screen. Any recommendations? Trying to balance a tight budget right now while building the studio (that's well over budget already).

I'm considering whether to go for something more like the Dell UltraSharp U2717D around £350 - with the hope that I'll be able to upgrade to something like the

PA272W in a years time.

Or, whether to go for something like the BenQ SW2700PT for £700 where I'd probably be more likely to wait a couple of years to upgrade.

In a situation where I'm trying to build a photography business and I don't really want to be spending money on a new screen right now, but I have to, what would you say is the cheapest screen that you would be happy to rely on?