Confused about Color Management in CS5 (Photos appearing differently in all other programs)

I recently noticed this and it's been driving me crazy; when I view photos in Photoshop CS5 they appear significantly lighter/more washed out than when viewed in other programs like Zoombrowser, Digital Photo Professional or just in a regular Windows folder using Filmstrip mode (Windows XP).  When opening the same photo in both CS5 and Zoombrowser and switching back and forth between the two windows the difference is very apparent...for example, one of the photos I compared was of a person in a black shirt -- in CS5 (lighter/washed out) the folds in the shirt were very obvious, but in Zoombrowser (darker, more contrast/saturation) the folds were nearly invisible and it looked like just solid black.  Now, after messing around with the settings in both Photoshop and in Zoombrowser I've found a few ways to get the photos to look the same in the two programs; one way gives them both the lighter/more washed out appearance and another way gives them both the darker appearance with more contrast and saturation.  My problem is that I'm not sure which view is accurate.
I use a NEC MultiSync LCD1990SXi monitor with SpectraView II calibration software and calibrate it every 2 weeks using these calibration settings (screenshot): http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8826/settingsx.jpg
In the SpectraView II Software under Preferences there's an option that says "Set as Windows Color Management System Monitor Profile - Automatically selects and associates the generated ICC monitor profile with the Color Management System (CMS)."  This option is checked.  Also, when I open the Windows' Color Management window there's only one option displayed, which is "LCD1990SXi #######" (the ####### represents my monitor's serial number).
I assume the above settings are all correct so far, but I'm not sure about the rest.
Here are my current default Color Settings in CS5 (screenshot): http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/666/photoshopcolorsettings.jpg
Changing these settings around doesn't seem to make the photo appear much different.  However, when I go to Edit -> Assign Profile, then click off of "Working RGB: sRGB IEC61966-2.1" and instead click Profile and select "LCD1990SXi ####### 2011-06-21 18-30 D65 2.20" from the drop-down menu, the picture becomes darker with more contrast and saturation and matches the picture in Zoombrowser.  Also, if I select "Adobe RGB (1998)" from the drop-down menu it's very similar in terms of increased darkness and contrast but the saturation is higher than with the LCD1990SXi setting.  Another way I've found to make the image equally dark with increased contrast and saturation is to go to View -> Proof Setup -> Custom and then click the drop-down menu next to "Device to Simulate" and select "LCD1990SXi ####### 2011-06-21 18-30 D65 2.20" again.
Alternatively, to make both images equally light and washed out I can go to Zoombrowser -> Tools -> Preferences and check the box next to "Color Management: Adjust colors of images using monitor profile."  This makes the image in Zoombrowser appear just like it does in CS5 by default.
Like I said, I'm confused as to which setting is the accurate one (I'm new to Color Management in general so I apologize for my ignorance on the subject).
It would seem that assigning the LCD1990SXi profile in CS5 would be the correct choice in order to match the monitor calibration given the name of the profile but the "Adjust colors of images using monitor profile" option in Zoombrowser sounds like it would do the same thing as well.  Also, I've read that Photoshop is a color managed software whereas Zoombrowser and Windows Picture and Fax Viewer are not which makes me think that maybe the lighter/washed out version seen in Photoshop is correct.  So which version (light or dark) is the accurate one that I should use to view and edit my photos?  Thanks in advance for any help or info.

Sorry for the late reply;
But before we go there or make any assumptions, it's important for
you to determine whether you're seeing consistent color in your
color-managed applications and only inconsistent color in those that are
not color-managed.  For that you'll need to do a little research to see
if the applications in which you're seeing darker colors have
color-management capability (and whether it is enabled).
I opened the same picture in 7 different applications and found that the 6 of the 7 displayed the photo equally dark with equally high contrast when compared to the 7th application (CS5).  The other 6 applications were Zoombrowser EX, Digital Photo Professional, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, Quicktime PictureViewer, Microsoft Office Picture Manager and Firefox.
However, at least two of these programs offer color management preferences and, when used, display the photo (from what I can tell) exactly the same as Photoshop CS5's default settings.  The two programs are two Canon programs: Zoombrowser EX and Digital Photo Professional.  Here's the setting that needs to be selected in Zoombrowser in order to match up with CS5 (circled in red):
And here's the setting in Digital Photo Professional that needs to be selected in order to match up with CS5 (again, circled in red):
*Note: When the option above "Monitor Profile" is selected ("Use the OS settings") the image is displayed exactly the same as when the monitor profile is selected.  It's only when sRGB is selected that it goes back to the default darker, more contrasty version.
So with the red-circled options selected, all three programs (CS5, ZB, DPP) display the images the same way; lighter and more washed out.  What I'm still having trouble understanding is if that ligher, more washed out display is the accurate one or not...I've read several tutorials for all three programs which only make things more confusing.  One of the tutorials says to always use sRGB if you want accurate results and *never* to use Monitor Profile and another says that, if you're using a calibrated monitor, you should always select Monitor Profile under the color management settings...so I'm still lost, unfortunately.
What I also don't understand is why, when the monitor profile is selected in CS5, the image is displayed in the dark and contrasty way that the other programs display it as by default but when the monitor profile is selected in Digitial Photo Professional it displays it in the lighter, more washed out way that CS5 displays it using CS5's default settings (sRGB).  Why would selecting the monitor profile in DPP display the photo the same way as when sRGB is selected in Photoshop?  And vice versa...why would selecting the monitor profile in Photoshop display the photo the same way as when sRGB is selected in DPP?
I feel like I'm missing something obvious here...which I probably am.  Again, I'm very new to this stuff so pardon my ignorance on the topic.
By the way, I find that the way that the non-color managed programs (Windows Picture and Fax Viewer et al.) display the photos is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than the duller, more washed out display that CS5 gives the photos, but ultimately what I want to see in these programs (especially PS5 where I'll be doing the editing) is the accurate representation of the actual photo itself...i.e. what it's supposed to look like and not a darker (or lighter) variant of it.
So just to reiterate my questions:
Why does selecting Monitor Profile under the color management settings in DPP give the same display results as the default sRGB profile in CS5 and vice versa?  (CS5 with monitor profile selected having the same display results as DPP with the sRGB profile selected)
When using CS5 with it's default color management settings (sRGB), using DPP with the Monitor Profile selected, and using Zoombrowser EX with "Adjust color of images using monitor profile" selected this results in all three programs displaying the same lighter, washed-out images...is this lighter, more washed-out display of the images shown in these three programs the accurate one?
I noticed when opening an image in Firefox it had the same darker, contrasty look as the other non-color managed applications had.  Assuming that the CS5 default settings are accurate, does this mean that if I edit a photo in CS5, save it, and upload it to the internet that other people who are viewing that image online will see it differently than how it's supposed to look (i.e. in a non-color-managed way?)  If so, this would seem to indicate that they'd see a less-than-flattering version of the photo since if their browser naturally displays images as darker and more contrasty and I added more darkness and contrast to the image in CS5, they'd be seeing a version of the photo that's far too dark and probably wouldn't look very good.  Is this something I have to worry about as well?
I apologize for the lengthy post; I do tend to be a bit OCD about these things...it's a habit I picked up once I realized I'd been improperly editing photos on an  incorrectly calibrated monitor for years and all that time and effort had been spent editing photos in a certain way that looked good on my incorrectly calibrated monitor but looked like crap on everyone else's screen, so the length and detail of this post comes from a desire to not repeat similar mistakes by editing photos the wrong way all over again.  Again, thanks in advance for all the help, it's greatly appreciated!

Similar Messages

  • Confused about color vs. b/w photos for printing...and more

    I reading confusing things about exporting a PDF for printing with both color and black and white images used in the same document.
    If I export to PDF and do a soft-proof and it looks okay, is that sufficient? If so, what's confusing about that, since this is my first print project, which Simulation Profile do I use? Is there a chart somewhere that compares U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 to let's say 80 lb Gloss book with Aqueous coating (C2S)?
    I don't know what any of this means. So, is there a good article on this site, elsewhere, or an online printer who can help a rookie like me ensure I end up with a decent product?
    UPrinting.com advertises a "Free Project Review" that includes the following:
    Our team will run your file through a 30-point inspection, covering technical issues including:
    Artwork dimensions
    Bleed setup
    Low resolution images
    Elements that are not within the safe zone
    Image clipping
    Font sizes
    Un-embedded fonts
    Folding setup
    Page scaling
    Line weights
    Proper text spacing (compressed/expanded)
    Narrow borders that are at risk of being cut
    Compliance with USPS Mailing Guidelines
    Bindery setup for multi-page artwork
    What should I do? Is this trustworthy as long as I get a contract proof? Is there a "Go To" online printer that everyone loves (not sure you can recommend that here) or should I seek out a local printer?
    I'm using CS4 and have a file that's (maybe) ready to go but am looking at a learning curve of days if not weeks if I have to figure it all out myself.
    Thanks everyone.
    Paul

    InDesign puts grayscale and B&W (bitmap mode) art on the Black plate, where it belongs, so if you soft proof using the CMYK profile for your expected output conditions your preview will be accurate for the grayscale and B&W images as they will appear in print. presuming your monitor is calibrated and profiled so that you can trust what you see.
    Aqueous coating is applied AFTER the printing to protect, and possible enhance the glossiness of, the page (but not all coatings are glossy). This is not the same thing as printing on coated paper, which has a glossy surface and high ink holdout (and improves detail reproduction and usually will geive better color). You should be using whatever profile the printer has specified.

  • Always so confused about color!!

    Can someone tell me how to get beautiful bright colors when I export to pdf? I am trying to brighten these photos as much as possible in photoshop so that they'll be bright when they print out, but every time I export to pdf, they dull down and all look slightly more greyish-brown. Is there something I could do to make this better?
    Here's how they look in InDesign's preview:
    And how they look in Preview App:
    And they're not just dark in Mac's Preview app... They are printing dark. Any comments?

    I asked the local printer that we're printing with. They said that the color profile they always use is this US SWOP one. And that they also print on a sheet-fed offset press. What do you make of this?
    I don't think all printers necessarily have a grip on color management or they might want to simply avoid the liability of color management and conversions. It sounds like they just use the InDesign defaults, but that doesn't mean the profile of their (sheetfed) press is actually US SWOP.
    If your jobs are consistently printing too dark, I would consider using US Sheetfed Coated as your document CMYK profile. It allows for more dot gain and density. There's nothing you can do about RGB color that is outside of the CMYK color gamut.

  • InDesign Color Management with BW photos

    I am ready to send a book to print. It includes many high resolution BW photos. The photos are Greyscale PSDs (provided to me on disc) and are linked to the document. When I go to package it it says that CMS is on and it is in CMYK mode. There is no greyscale option, so do I A)Leave it the way it is? B) turn off the CMS? and if so, C) do I need to turn of the CMS on each photo individually or just in the document? D) none of the above?
    I am on a deadline with this so any help would be fantastic. Thanks.

    >Does that affect the way the images will print?
    Yes, I think so, but I'm not an expert on how, exactly grayscale works in ID.
    I always have color management enabled, and I use the CMYK profile for my working space that matches the press condition. I see reports that InDesign prints grayscale either darker or lighter than the same image from Photoshop, but I've never had results that I considered unacceptable. I usually use a dot gain profile of 20 or 30% when converting to grayscale, depending on if the paper will be coated or not. It's better to err, in my opinion, slightly on the light side in doing the conversions, too. Things tend to darken up on press.
    If you're lucky, Gerald Singlemann may wander by with better information.
    Peter

  • Confused about color profile support in PNG

    NOTE -- you have to hover over the image to see the real images.  The images embedded in the webpage have their profiles stripped -- just like photoshop does!  Interesting.
    I ask a similar question on this before, but couldn't give a satisfactory demonstration of how photoshop doesn't support color profiles in png's.
    But now I have a great one.
    Picture A: this is with the correct color profile and displays correctly in firefox and probably other browsers -- also displays correctly on windows desktop and in large-icon view. 
    Ok, anyone who doesn't believe me, grab that image and try to read it into photoshop...
    I do, and get no warning on profile mismatch like I do on jpg's or tiff's:
    photoshop strips the existing profile and adds sRGB which isn't the correct profile.
    This is how photoshop transforms good colors into bad:
    Completly screwed up.
    I have had multiple people notice how my png saved images from photoshop had "off" or bad colors -- usually washed out in comparison w/my monitor profile.
    I can get 'ok' results if I flatten the image and *convert* my existing profile to sRGB -- and I usually get
    something that looks 'acceptable'...though the jpg's render in accurate color.
    Basically, photoshop can't read or write png web images. and maintain color fidelity unless they have no profile.  Even if they have an sRGB profile, I usually get washed out looking pics if I don't strip it but let adobe convert it.
    In googling for my own problem, I found references to this problem in Adobe Photoshop going back to 2002.
    Why does adobe refuse to fix this?  It's horrible.
    They could fix it with a file plugin for existing CS5-6 users, but it really needs to get fixed and Adobe needs to stop ignoring this problem.
    :-(  I find this extra depressing because I prefer to distribute my pictures losslessly in png,  but with photoshop, I'm left with lossy jpegs to get accurate color reproduction.

    How did the SFW thing even come up??  When I embed profiles in jpg and tiff, I do it as part of the File Save or File Save As dialog.  I can choose what profile to save it with -- and I usually save it with my currently calibrated monitor profile -- as that color profile is what was used to create the picture.  Why would I want to convert them to some other profile??  Only thing I have needed to convert have been PNG's because it doesn't embed my monitor profile in the PNG the same way jpg and tiff do.
    If it did, png's would look the same as jpgs and tiffs... but the jpgs and tiffs have the full depth of color and look the same as they do in PS.  png's look washed out because -- it's been my belief that PS is not storing my profile in the png, but setting a bit in the file to use the sRGB profile. 
    AFAIK, PNG provided for a sRGB profile-compat bit -- so images that were compat w/that profile could just set a bit rather than including a profile.  I see no evidence that PS is saving my monitor profile with the PNG.
    My 'settings' for RGB are to convert to working RGB profile which is my monitor profile.
    I do have it set to ask me abou profile mismatches on opening or pasting.
    Since I don't get a 'this document has a different color profile than the working space'
    message when I edit most png's, I assume it has none.  Thus from my settings
    it should autoconvert it to my monitor profile and save that on save -- which seems to be what happens when I save as jpg or tiff (or I can check off the box to save profile...but I usually don't).

  • Confused about cloud back up of photos

    Hi,
    I am a bit of a neeb with Apple so please bare with me!
    I have an ipad new generation and an iphone 5.  I have photostream running on both of them.  So when I take a photo on either device, it appears on the other.
    I also have photostream on my PC - so any photos I take appear in a standard Windows folder on my PC.
    Does this mean that I need not back up photos I take on either device to my PC - or will any of the files on my PC be deleted for any reason that I wouldn't be aware of?
    I guess I still need to back up videos as photostream doesn't do that for me - I am worried because I don't want to lose all of my photos, but at the same time, don't want 5 different copies of the same photos on my PC.
    Also - slightly related question - Is there a way to allow any photos I take on my iphone back up to photostream (ie my PC) - but not to have my iphone download all other pictures off photostream?
    Hopefully someone can help me understand!
    Thanks!

    As long as you can get a good wifi connection they should upload to your photo stream.  Upload speeds can be a little slow when traveling though.  Another thing to bear in mind is that your photo stream will only keep up to 1000 photos for 30 days.  If you're going to be gone longer than that, or take more photos than that you may run into issues unless you manually add them to a shared stream (see http://help.apple.com/icloud/#/mmc0cd7e99), which will hold up to 5000 photos per stream indefinitely until you delete them.
    Another option would be to get a dropbox account and use the dropbox app to upload them to their server for safekeeping.

  • Library and Develop Module Photos Appear Different

    I am using Lightroom 4.4   Dell Ultrasharp monitor is calibrated.  I own and have been referring to Scott Kelby's Lightroom4 book for digital photographers.  I recently took some photos of my daughters prom.  She had on a beautiful reddish orange dress.  I notice that the dress appears very red in the develop module, however, appears a bit more orange in the library module.  The change is very noticeable between the modules.  The dress also appears similar to the library module view (a bit more orange) when viewed on the web via Flickr utilizing Chrome, Firefox, or IPad.  It also appears the same when exported to a JPEG file.
    I have done some experimenting and have determined that this color change effect appears to be very noticeable utilizing the Adobe Standard Camera Calibration Profile.  It does not happen (at least to a noticeable extent) with the others such as Camera Standard where the dress appears a bit more orange in both the library and develop module.  I do, however, like the appearance of the Adobe Standard profile better and this happens to be the default profile as well.
    I have also noticed that the dress looks more orange when Soft Proofing is enabled.  The change happens immediately when the check box is enabled.  Checking the box makes the photo appear similar to the Library module view.  Enabling Soft Proofing does make noticeable that there is Destination Gamut Warning which mainly involves the dress which is the point of interest, however, there is no warning with the Monitor Gamut Warning.  I am intending to place the photos on the web at this time via Flickr.  I will be printing several later so will be worrying about the printer gamut at that time.  But for now, I would like to get the photos on the web looking as intended.
    Having the photos look so different in the Library and Develop Modules is very frustrating.  I am hoping that there is a simple setting or fix for this problem that I am experiencing.  Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.
    -Mark

    Hi Victoria. Thanks for your reply. Re the saturation of the yellows, an example of a photo which shows the behaviour is that of a sunflower shot in direct sunlight. So a typical bright yellow. The raw files are from a D7000, so I have several "camera" profiles to choose from in LR4, in addition to the default Adobe Standard. None of the camera profiles show a difference between Library & Develop. Also, the Adobe Standard profile only shows the described behaviour when yellows are present. I can find plenty of examples where the photos are identical between the two modules when there are no yellows in the shot. I doubt this is a monitor profiling problem, given that it affects just the Adobe Standard profile, however I will try re-profiling. My U2412M display is not wide gamut. I posted here because the issue I am seeing sounds very similar to the original poster's. We're both using Dell Ultrasharp displays, although that could be a coincidence. I'll see if I can get some screen grabs from my Mac and upload here later today. I'm on my Windows 7 laptop at the moment.
    R
    Update:
    I have a pair of screen grab JPEGs from the Mac which I'm happy to share, however the upload here in the forum is limited in size. Any suggestions how I can best share the full size JPEGs?
    Re-profiling hasn't changed anything. I'm pretty sure my profile is good. Ambient natural lighting, monitor warmed up, etc. Native white point used as always. The difference between profiled and unprofiled is very subtle. The U2412M appears to be pretty accurate at factory settings.
    If I turn soft proofing on in Develop I see the less saturated image which matches Library. Turning it off again and the differences return.
    LR4 on my Windows 7 laptop doesn't have the same problem. The screen on that is calibrated with the same Spyder3, however the laptop's screen is of a mediocre quality compared to the U2412M.
    Found another thread where the poster is having the same problems with yellows, this time in LR5.
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1265004

  • Photos look awful in Photoshop & Bridge but fine in all other programs; how can i fix this?

    I just got a new windows 7 64-bit laptop (Sony Vaio vpcf226fm/b) and installed photoshop cs5 extended on it and began to look through some of my photos with Bridge and notied that they were all very washed out and desaturated.  In addition, certain parts of some of the pictures were very low-resolution...I'm not exactly sure how to describe it, but darker parts of the photos would have the same sort of effect you get when saving an gif image at very low quality.  Id take a screenshot but unfortunately am not at home right now.  Anyway, I thought the laptop might be messed up but the same pictures look fine when viewed in any other program...its just photoshop and bridge that they appear so poorly in.  I messed around with the color settings but couldn't make much progress...finally the only thing that I found to work was, with an image open, to go to View - Proof Colors and that would make the photo appear the same as in the rest of the programs, without the washed out/desaturated look and without the lo-resolution areas.  I can't find a way to make that stick, though, or a way to apply it to Bridge.
    So what can I do?  And what's likely to be causing this in the first place?

    Alright, I'm back home now.
    Here's what I mean about the major difference in saturation...the top photo is a screenshot from Canon's Zoombrowser software and the bottom photo is a screenshot of the same photo in Adobe Bridge CS5:
    As you can see, there's also a greyish/bluish tint when viewed with Photoshop/Bridge as well.
    And here's what I mean about parts of some of the photos being very low-resolution...you can see it especially well in this underexposed photo (the lower left and right corners and the edges of the clouds), again Zoombrowser on top and Bridge on the bottom:
    What are your Edit > Color Settings? (A screenshot might be more convenient than typing it up.)
    Have the images been saved with the ICC-Profiles embedded or not?
    Here's a screenshot of the color settings:
    Also, the images haven't been saved by anything else before, they're straight off the camera, unedited.
    How have you calibrated your display? And have you changed your display controls since it was calibrated?
    Basically, this is a symptom of your display profile not matching your display, and it'll only affect color managed applications that rely on the display profile.
    I haven't calibrated the display and wasn't really planning to since it's a laptop and is going to be used mainly for photo and video viewing rather than editing; my desktop is what I do almost all my editing work with, but since this laptop is new and much faster I was planning on using it to sort through and organize all my hundreds of thousands of photos, then transfer that selection to my desktop for post-processing.  However, it's still important that I have a fairly accurate display on the laptop since I don't want to delete something that looks bad if it turns out that it only looked bad because of the laptop's display.
    I put the new laptop next to my desktop's monitor and then borrowed two other laptops and put those on the same table too and had all four computers display the same image; the laptop was clearly the odd one out both when viewing the image in Photoshop as well as when viewing it in Zoombrowser.  In Zoombrowser it was far more bright and saturated than the other 3 displays and in Photoshop it was far less saturated than the other 3, plus it had low-resolution areas like in the second screenshot whereas the other 3 did not...so I'm not sure what to do now.  The non-color managed photos are apparently being displayed inaccurately by being overly bright and saturated and the color-managed photos are being displayed inaccurately  by being too desaturated plus having lo-res areas.  Any help?

  • Confused about Acrobat 9 and CS5

    Hi...
    I recently upgraded from CS4 (Design Premium) to CS5. No problem. However, I am not sure what to do about the separate Acrobat 9 installation disk. In the CS5 instructions, it says that old versions of Acrobat have to be removed before installing Acrobat 9. However, I notice that Acrobat 9 is listed as part of CS4 (but not CS5). Do I have to remove Acrobat 9/CS4 and install Acrobat 9 from the separate disk in CS5 or it the program already updated.
    Thank you...

    This makes sense for an Upgrade from CS4.  But if I am doing a new install of CS5,  I have to install Acrobat separately and it asks for a serial number (this was included in the CS4 install).
    The new CS5 install using the Application Manager works great, but it would be nice to have Acrobat included.

  • Web color management in CS5

    I understand there are a number of threads on the subject, but since most of them recommend embedding profiles, I started a fresh one.
    I want Photoshop to display the same colors as the web browser, with the following "save for web" stipulations:
    - No embedded profile (it balloons the file size and not all browsers support them, leading to inconsistent display).
    - No profile conversion (if I have color #bb8800 in my html code and in my image, I need them to match).
    With CS-CS3, I did my web work in generic RGB and saved for web with "embed profile" and "convert to sRGB" turned off. This workflow kept the color consistent in Photoshop, in the "save for web" dialog box, and in the browser.
    With CS5, it does not work anymore and I cannot find a workflow that maintains the color.

    I'm missing something here. I set everything as you suggest, and the colors in Safari are much more saturated than in Photoshop. Or I should say, the colors are a lot less saturated in Photoshop.
    Top left shows HTML color blocks.
    Bottom left is untagged photoshop image.
    Right is same image as displayed in Photoshop with sRGB profile assigned.
    As you see, the left images are a perfect match (as they should be, since the color #s match). The image in Photoshop is a lot less saturated.
    You are wrong in your understanding of "generic rgb". Untagged images are assumed to be the default working space (which for web work is sRGB).
    Actually we're both wrong. Generic RGB IS a profile. So the image IS tagged. But it's not as neutral as I assumed.

  • Color management between CS5, monitor and printer?

    I am using CS5 and can not seem to match what I see on my monitor with what prints out. I have a Dell 3007HC 2650x1900 monitor and a Epson 3880 Printer, using windows 7 pro. I am familiar with how to change settings I just can't get the right combo. Any help would be much appreciated.

    Have a look at this article - it goes into this issue in detail;
    http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps12_colour/ps12_1.htm
    Cheers,
    Alan

  • I'm confused about those 'Management Engine' drivers in the Chipset category

    Intel AMT 7.1 - Management Engine Interface and Serial Over LAN driver (SOL) Driver
    Intel AMT 7.1 Management Engine Firmware
    Intel Management Engine Firmware 7.1
    Intel Management Engine Interface 7.1 and Serial Over LAN (SOL) Driver
    Who can tell me please what's the difference between AMT and non-AMT?
    and, which should I install?
    Thanks in advance.
    My system is w520 running windows 8 pro 64bit.

    Well, thank you very much indeed dear richk, I'm desperately waiting for the answers.
    So you mean that installing those two non-AMT Management Engine drivers will be perfectly enough?

  • Iphone: Confused about memory managment in HelloWorld

    In the HelloWorld example you can find the following code:
    MyViewController *aViewController = [[MyViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"ControllerView" bundle:[NSBundle mainBundle]];
    self.myViewController = aViewController;
    [aViewController release];
    The myViewController is released in the dealloc method.
    I dont see why I need to declare and assign the temporary "aViewController" just to assign it to the instance variable. Wouldn't it be enough to write:
    self.myViewController = [[MyViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"ControllerView" bundle:[NSBundle mainBundle]];
    As I see it, myViewConroller will keep a reference to the object, and it will be released once the dealloc method is invoked.

    The property "myViewController" most probably has been declared as such:
    @property (nonatomic, retain) MyViewController* myViewController;
    This means that every time something is assigned to it, the ref-count for that object is incremented (as 'retain' is called).
    So, if you were to do this:
    self.myViewController = [[MyViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"ControllerView" bundle:[NSBundle mainBundle]];
    You would be incrementing the ref-count for the newly allocated object and the object will then have a refcount of 2 (as by default 'alloc' sets ref-count to 1). Now, even if myViewController is released in dealloc, it will only decrement the count to '1' from '2'; this results in a memory leak.
    So the golden rule is, *every time* you do an 'alloc' or 'copy' it is your responsibility to 'release' that object. And for this reason you see it being assigned and then being released again. This is what happens:
    MyViewController *aViewController = [[MyViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"ControllerView" bundle:[NSBundle mainBundle]];
    Ref Count for aViewController is 1
    self.myViewController = aViewController;
    Ref Count for aViewController is 2 (as self.myViewController does a retain on it)
    [aViewController release];
    Ref count for aViewController is now 1
    Later when myViewController is released, ref-count of the object pointed by 'aViewController' or 'myViewController' is then set to 0 and at that point it's released from memory.

  • Why does my email template appear differently in various email programs?

    I have created a CSS-style based email template using Dreamweaver CS6.  The template looks great within Dreamweaver, on Internet Explorer and in Outlook 2003.  However, when viewed in Outlook 2010, Hotmail and Gmail, the template is distorted.  If I set my containers using pixel size, why would it be different when viewed in other email programs?
    Here is my code:
    <style type="text/css">
    .pageborder {
    width: 795px;
    height: 995px;
    border: medium solid #008478;
    font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
    font-size: 10pt;
    margin: 0 auto;
    .prodboxleft {
    font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
    font-size: 10pt;
    background-color: #76c6be;
    width: 370px;
    float: left;
    height: 164px;
    border: medium dashed #008478;
    margin-top: 5px;
    margin-bottom: 5px;
    margin-left: 12px;
    .prodboxright {
    font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
    font-size: 10pt;
    background-color: #76c6be;
    width: 370px;
    float: right;
    height: 164px;
    border: medium dashed #008478;
    margin-top: 5px;
    margin-right: 12px;
    margin-bottom: 5px;
    .clearing {
    clear:both;
    display:block;
    visibility:hidden;
    .pageborder .prodboxleft img {
    padding: 8px;
    .pageborder .prodboxright a img {
    padding: 8px;
    </style>
    </head>
    <body>
    <div class="pageborder"><br /><center><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=12679&c=723462&h=55e51819e92ef317c357" width="720" height="86" border="0" /><br /><br />
      <a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Diagnostic-Products"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28469&c=723462&h=dc5c279154096ce1f361" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Pharmaceuticals"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28474&c=723462&h=9365342d3d72baf4c0d2" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Exam-Room-Supplies"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28470&c=723462&h=4f1b836f6412ab952e34" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Vision-Testing"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28468&c=723462&h=3c7664689336406c15ee" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Optical-Tools-Supplies"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28473&c=723462&h=a227a48f3b29b0a38f7a" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Medical-Surgical-Supplies"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28472&c=723462&h=c94240f73ea2a1647745" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Sterilizing-Disinfecting"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28475&c=723462&h=5742c12d94b5c490d535" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Instruments"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28471&c=723462&h=3e0b5322e37bf2b86796" width="195" height="40" border="0" /></a></center><br />
    <font size="5"><b><center>Great Prices and February Shipping Special!</center></b></font><br />
    <div class="prodboxleft"><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Drops/Fluoron-1532"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=1323&c=723462&h=24fddfba2d9dd33cb960" width="151" height="144" align="left" border="0" /><a/><br /><font size="4"><b>Fluoron<sup>&reg;</sup> 5 ml</b></font><br /><em>Compare to Fluress<sup>&reg;</sup></em><br /><font size="4"><b>$6.95</b></font><br />Was $8.90<br /><br />Item #1532</div>
    <div class="prodboxright"><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Drops/Fluorocaine-8482"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=1324&c=723462&h=bff0adfc33d25c58f9a2" width="162" height="144" align="left" border="0" /></a><br /><font size="4"><b>Fluorocaine&#8482; 5 ml</b></font><br /><br /><font size="4"><b>$7.30</b></font><br />Was $7.80<br /><br />Item #1533</div>
    <hr class="clearing" /><div class="prodboxleft"><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Drops/Tropicamide-1-0-15-ml_2"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=3992&c=723462&h=b9c0ceeda9e5db57fbfd" width="61" height="144" align="left" border="0" /></a><br />
      <font size="4"><b>Tropicamide 1.0% 15 ml</b></font><br />
      <em>Compare to Mydriacyl<sup>&reg;</sup></em><br />
      <font size="4"><b>$8.40</b></font><br />
      Was $10.80<br />
      <br />
      Item #1579</div>
    <div class="prodboxright"><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Drops/Tropicamide-0-5-15-ml"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=28676&c=723462&h=3be84121296356649aa6" width="57" height="144" align="left" border="0" /></a><br /><font size="4"><b>Tropicamide 0.5% 15 ml</b></font><br />
      <em>Compare to Mydriacyl<sup>&reg;</sup></em><br />
      <font size="4"><b>$8.20</b></font><br />
      Was $10.50<br />
      <br />
      Item #1586</div>
    <hr class="clearing" /><div class="prodboxleft"><a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Drops/Phenylephrine-HCl-2-5-15-ml-Akorn-brand_2"><img src="https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=9387&c=723462&h=e2293736ebaa71f5455b" width="53" height="144" align="left" border="0" /></a><br /><font size="4"><b>Phenylephrine 2.5% 15 ml</b></font><br />
      <em>Compare to Neo-Synephrine<sup>&reg;</sup></em><br />
      <font size="4"><b>$9.00</b></font><br />
      Was $10.25<br />
      <br />
      Item #1554</div>
    <div class="prodboxright"><center>
        <font size="4"><b>FEBRUARY SHIPPING SPECIAL!</b></font><br />www.eyecareandcure.com<br /><br /><font size="3"><b>Free Ground Shipping on all<br />internet orders over $200.00*</b></font><br />Enter Promo Code FEB13 during checkout<br /><br />
    <font size="1">*Valid only on orders placed on our website from<br />
    02/01/13-02/28/13. Not valid with any other promotional offer.</font>
    </center></div><hr class="clearing" />
    <center>To place your order, please visit our website at
    <a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com"><font color="#008579">www.eyecareandcure.com</font></a>, or call Customer Service<br />
    at 1-800-486-6169.  You can also
    <a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Monthly-Specials">
    <font color="#008579">download</font></a> a
    copy of this special and fax it to us at 1-877-321-1267.<br><br>Need access to our website? 
    <a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Registration">
    <font color="#008579">Click here</font></a> to register.<br />24-7 ordering, special offers, order
    history and much, much more!<br /><br />
    <font size="1"><em>All prices subject to change.  Some additional restrictions may apply.<br />
    See <a href="http://www.eyecareandcure.com/Terms-Policies"><font color="#008579">www.eyecareandcure.com/Terms-Policies</font></a> for standard terms and conditions.</em></font>
    </center>
    </div>
    </div>
    </body>
    And here is a screen shot of the different results:

    If email marketing is new to you, the below links are a good starting point for how to go about getting a good-looking and consistent design.
    http://kb.mailchimp.com/article/common-html-email-coding-mistakes
    http://24ways.org/2009/rock-solid-html-emails/
    http://htmlemailboilerplate.com/
    The boilerplate is good for reference but in my opinion is overkill for most email campaigns. It does a good job of highlighting why they do certain things though.
    Rik

  • Just upgraded to the new mac operating system and Illustrator CS5 crashes upon launching. All other applications open fine

    Any helpful ideas?

    Did you migrate the CS5 files or do a complete reinstall of the software from the original media? Adobe products don't do well with migration.

Maybe you are looking for

  • First day of week in WebAccess and CalendarPublisher

    Hi, after upgrading from GW8.02 to GW2012SP1 the first day of week in WebAcc and CalPub is Sunday again. Under GW8.02 I had configured the first day as Monday (in a configuration file) Unfortunately I don't remember which file it was? Any ideas? Kind

  • Can I install windows 8 on my iMac so all drivers work?

    Puedo instalar windows 8 en mi imac para que funcionen todos los drivers? whit botcamp

  • I got a new iPhone but I want to use my old one as an iPod

    When I plugged the iPhone into the computer the computer didn't let me  move any songs onto it so I reset the phone which didn't make any difference so then I took out the sim card which was my old one and didn't have any cell service on it but when

  • Would someone tell me the fuzzy concept

    I try to use java to read a file about 16Mb to a string, first it's out of memory, and then I increase the heap use -mx200000000, make it to about 200Mb. It can handle the file, but it still take about 20-30 seconds to read it. and I use another tool

  • MBP w/Retina Display Problem After Sleep

    I have bought a MBP Retina Display 15" in July 2012 and until recently I did not have any problems with my Mac. However, I am having the same problem as the one in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt0tS8KJKuQ There seems to be no problem if