Aperture and color calibration

I use 17" MacBook pro and a 30" Apple display with my Aperture.
As there're quite a huge difference in the screen output quality of these two, I'd like a little advice.
Do I need to equal out the differences or should I just trust the 30" ?
I'm thinking of getting a calibration tool, but I haven't done that much research.
If I get one, like Pantone Eye 2, will this do the "trick" when using two monitors as different as 30" stand alone and 17" portable screen?

It is always a good idea to calibrate your screen with a hardware device, as it is very difficult to judge color by eye. (A good example of the difficulty of determining color by eye can be found here: http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_proof.html.) Even your 30" screen should be calibrated.
That being said, laptop LCDs are known to be difficult to calibrate, so the displays may be slightly different after calibration, but they will usually be much closer than without calibration. I calibrate my 23" ACD and my 17" laptop display, as well as a CRT display on a Windows machine.
I use the Gretag MacBeth Eye-One photo, however I believe there are many good choices on the market today. Search the internet for reviews of brands you are considering.
-Karen

Similar Messages

  • X-Rite i1 Pro and color calibration

    Will the X-rite i1 Pro work with the X-Rite color calibration software?
    Cheers,
    Steve

    It will work with DCCS version 1.5 or higher (it should, and it has been reported to work), but it will have less accuracy than an i1DisplayPro while dealing with GB-LEDs (like these Dells).
    This last statement is not Xrite or Dell's software fault, it will happen with any good calibration software and GB-LED monitors, its just a matter of Xrite's spectrophotometers hardware limitations.

  • Different colors in Aperture and Photoshop - trying everything

    I'm having problems with color in PS CS2 looking a bit flat after doing "edit with" from Aperture. I shoot raw and do most processing in Aperture 2.0, where I have on-screen proofing turned off right now. I "edit with" PS, which exports to a 16-bit .psd file that opens in PS; I understand I have no control over the embedded color profile, which is always Adobe RGB, I believe.
    On the Photoshop side, I have selected "preserve embedded profiles" and turned on notification of mismatch, just in case. I have selected Adobe RGB 1998 as the RGB color setting in PS. I have Proof Colors turned off. I have also deselected "Desaturate Monitor Colors" in PS Advanced Color Settings.
    In Aperture, the adjusted raw and the managed psd file, sitting side by side, look identical in color. If I compare those two images to the same psd image I just opened in Photoshop, the one in the PS window is less saturated. I have the Aperture and PS windows open on the same Cinema monitor, so it's not a monitor difference.
    I'm no expert in color management, for sure...what else can I try? I’m going crazy!

    I'm no expert in color management
    An expert in colour management engineeri can fail in configuring any two ICC-enabled applications for compatible assumptions. Understanding the architecture is one thing and understanding the current conditions for configuration are another.
    In such situations as this, the best bet is to ask the Apple ColorSync Users List.
    /hh

  • VISTA color management and monitor calibration

    Elements 7.0
    VISTA Home Premium SP1
    Nvidia 8600
    Samsung SyncMaster 213T
    Canon XSi
    Multiple printers
    Since getting new system with Vista, I haven't been able to get a print that looks like my screen. I tried Costco today and everything was much darker than I expected, but the reds were much richer. I read a lot about calibrating my monitor, but it is possible that there is more do it than that? Learning to adjust skin tone etc. in Photoshop, only to have the prints look bad is pretty frustrating.
    Is the other option to invest in a quality printer, or go to a real lab instead of Costco?
    Please use small words, since I'm not a professional.
    Regards,
    Michael

    Michael, color management is certainly a difficult issue to perfect. My monitor is color calibrated but it doesn't guarantee that the prints will match. With the same image, I get different results from different printers and labs. I get the best results from labs in the local camera/photo shops, and the pricing for enlargements is still on par with like Snapfish or Kodak.
    Check this setting in PSE: Edit>Color Settings...>Always Optimize for Printing. I would suggest color calibrating your monitor, then try different labs until you find the best results.

  • Color Calibration Issues with iPhoto 7.0.2 and H-P Photosmart 7360

    I'm having color calibration problems with print output to my H-P Photosmart 7360
    since iPhoto 7 and above. Is anyone else encountering this? I'm consistently getting
    darker output on the printer compared to what's on the screen. Up until iPhoto 7, the
    match was dead on, what you saw on the screen is what you got on the printer.
    Any suggestions?

    I'm having color calibration problems with print output to my H-P Photosmart 7360
    since iPhoto 7 and above. Is anyone else encountering this? I'm consistently getting
    darker output on the printer compared to what's on the screen. Up until iPhoto 7, the
    match was dead on, what you saw on the screen is what you got on the printer.
    Any suggestions?

  • W520 FHD LED TFT 95% Gamut Display and Color Sensor with Pantone Calibration - Review

    Last week I have received my (first) new Lenovo W520 Thinkpad, which I decided to buy after lots of research on the internet. I am excited about its computing power and feature richness. Its biggest flaw though is the 1920x1080 LED TFT FHD display, which offers the worst color calibration I have seen in a high-end laptop in the last 10 years.
    Its color rendering is highly disappointing as it shows unnatural, oversaturated colors that make the monitor useless for professional photo and video editing purposes. Primary tones glare neon-like in a highly disturbing manner. A red stop sign appears pink and flags in the google image search are displayed in a ridiculous way.
    I have tried the following approaches to improve the color rendering.
    The built-in color sensor in conjunction with the Pantone calibration software lead to the worst outcome. The white background of Windows Explorer becomes yellowish-greenish.
    A better outcome canbe achieved using Windows 7 color management for display calibration, which doesn't avoid the neon colors, but at least white is rendered white.
    Using the Nvidia graphic card tools and setting back gamma to 0.76 also helps to a very little degree.
    Another solution is a free gamma correction tool called QuickMonitorProfile. This brings back the reds to normal tones with the side effect, that all mid-tones are rendered very pale.
    I didn't have a possibility to try high-class external calibration hardware. For me the only solution remains to use a decent external monitor.
    I have found the following interesting threads related to this topic:
    http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/How-do-I-lower-the-saturation-on-my-W520-the-r...
    http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/W510-W520-FHD-color-profile-supplied-by-Lenovo...
    http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/Very-happy-with-my-W520/m-p/508841#M18189
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    Color sensor is bad joke, it's totally useless. Display gives better results without calibration than calibration with color sensor.
    I tested calibration with best possible tools, using Eye One with i1Profiler and results are much better but still it's no way near acceptable for serious photography work. Delta variation is 15-20% (meaning colors are 15-20% off from the correct one, compared to Eizo Coloredge monitors where delta variation is around 2%).
    Color sensor is just marketing gimmic for Lenovo. As I have stated on another post, Lenovo needs to get on grip on various BIG problems with their top of the Thinkpad laptops.

  • Color management with Aperture and HP Envy 110

    I have an up-to-date version of Aperture and a new HP envy 110 printer. There does not seem to be the option to use any clor profile but HPs on the print menu. Th eproblem seems to be common to all other apps I use. Have I wasted my money?

    Hi Melnee,
    I see that you are having some scanning and eFax issues with the ENVY 110. I would like to see if I can help. When you try to scan from the front panel of the printer into the computer, what error or message do you get?
    Although the 10.9.4 Operating System is not listed in this document, the 10.8 steps will be the same: A 'No Computer Detected' or 'Connection Error' Message Displays during Scanning.
    Regarding the eFax issue, you would need to speak with the HP Cloud Support Team. If you live in the USA/Canada, 1-855-785-2777. If you live outside the USA/Canada, click HERE to find the Technical Support number for your country/region.
    Let me know if the document for scanning has helped.
    Cheers,
    JERENDS
    I work on behalf of HP
    Please click “Accept as Solution” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
    Click the “Kudos Thumbs Up" to the left of the reply button to say “Thanks” for helping!

  • Aperture and dual monitor ICC profile problem

    I am using an Epson Stylus Pro 3800 and run Aperture 2.1 from a MBP with a Cinema Display 23". I calibrated both displays (the 23" and the MBP display) with my ancient but working ColorVision Spyder, using OptiCal 3.7. I calibrated for a gamma of 2.2. and native white point. I check the results with various test images.
    Here is the problem: the calibration produces a perfectly calibrated display, but when I open Aperture some color change is taking place, as if Aperture pulls in a wrong profile for the display (which then also leads to wrong colors in the prints): sometimes the photo which I have printed out before in perfect quality displays with either a nasty yellow cast or with totally oversaturated colors. I have used ColorSync utility to make the 23" the default display and I have also tried to simply close the MBP to work only with the 23", and sometimes either of these this did the trick. Most of the times, however, I get these color casts or oversaturation of the photos which I had worked on for a while and printed earlier with perfection.
    I ran Disk Utility to Repair Disk Permissions (many Epson-related permissions were wrong, for example "Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter/Libraries/UtilityCore.framework/Versions/ A/Resources/Icon8007.png", should be -rw-rw-r-- , they are -rwxrwxr-x ) and reinstalled the latest Epson driver for 10.5 repeatedly.
    Even more surprising, at times the color of the full screen image can be off at the same time the thumbnail looks perfect! How is this possible? It seems as if thumbnail and full image use different display profiles. In addition, if I export the Master and display it in Lightroom or CS2 it looks perfectly fine and prints as expected. (I use the appropriate "canned" ICC profiles for the printer-paper combination).
    The most surprising happens, however, when I drag the image from the 23" to the MBP: when the image is about half-way between the two displays (that is, one part is displayed on the 23", the other on the MBP scree) it suddenly changes from off-color or oversaturated to the correct color on the 23". If I then move the image up to the 23" again, the wrong display colors appear again.
    I am at a loss: I have spent a lot of money on the gorgeous screen, the great printer, and Aperture (which is a great program), but I cannot get Aperture to print reliably, or rather, I cannot get Aperture to use the right display profile to display the image correctly in a reliable way.
    I have read kbeat's color management blog and many entries on this blog here, but I have not found a solution. I appreciate your help.

    Kai,Simon,
    This is the problem i have been having.Colour profiling is correct,prints are rubbish.I run a fuji frontier
    as well as epson printers.Anything from aperture is not what you see on screen.I am running aperture2.1.
    Today we are removing 2.1 and doing a reinstall of 1.1 but not upgrading to 2 to test run prints.I have been looking for answers to this for sometime.
    Simon,the problems we are have are very similar to you clients,photoshop fine,aperture not.I also have 20"external apple monitor attached which is used as the colour correcting monitor ( as the imac screen is not that good for criticl work ) I will post my findings here.
    Simon, if you wish to investigate further,e-mail me,i am in leeds
    daisy ( not a happy printer )

  • Need help understanding profiles and color management

    I made the big leap from inexpensive inkjets to:
    1 Epson 3800 Standard
    2 Spyder3Studio
    I have a Mac Pro Quad, Aperture, PS3, etc.
    I have a steep learning curve ahead, here's what I've done:
    1 Read a lot of books, watched tutorials, etc.
    2 Calibrated the monitor
    3 Calibrated the printer several times and created .icc profiles
    What I've found:
    1 The sample print produced by Spyder3Print, using the profile I created with color management turned off in the print dialog, looks very good.
    2 When I get into Aperture, and apply the .icc profile I created in the proofing profile with onscreen proofing, the onscreen image does not change appreciably compared with the no proof setting. It gets slightly darker
    3 When I select File>Print image, select the profile I created, turn off color management and look a the resulting preview image it looks much lighter and washed out than the onscreen image with onscreen proofing turned on.
    4 When I print the image, it looks the same as was shown in the print preview...light and washed out, which is much different than what is shown in edit mode.
    5 When I open PS3 with onscreen soft-proofing, the onscreen image is light and washed out...just like displayed in PS3 preview. If I re-edit the image to look OK onscreen, and print with the profile and color management turned off, the printed image looks OK.
    So, why am I confused?
    1 In the back of my simplistic and naive mind, I anticipated that in creating a custom printer profile I would only need to edit a photo once, so it looks good on the calibrated screen, and then a custom printer profile will handle the work to print a good looking photo. Different profiles do different translations for different printers/papers. However, judging by the PS work, it appears I need to re-edit a photo for each printer/paper I encounter...just doesn't seem right.
    2 In Aperture, I'm confused by the onscreen proofing does not present the same image as what I see in the print preview. I'm selecting the same .icc profile in both locations.
    I tried visiting with Spyder support, but am not able to explain myself well enough to help them understand what I'm doing wrong.
    Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Calibrated the printer several times and created .icc profiles
    You have understand that maintaining the colour is done by morphing the colourants, and you have understood that matching the digital graphic display (which is emissive) to the print from the digital graphic printer (which is reflective) presupposes a studio lighting situation that simulates the conditions presupposed in the mathematical illuminant model for media independent matching. Basically, for a display-to-print match you need to calibrate and characterise the display to something like 5000-55000 kelvin. There are all sorts of arguments surrounding this, and you will find your way through them in time, but you now have the gist of the thing.
    So far so good, but what of the problem posed by the digital graphic printer? If you are a professional photographer, you are dependent on your printer for contract proofing. Your prints you can pass to clients and to printers, but your display you cannot. So this is critical.
    The ICC Specification was published at DRUPA Druck und Papier in Düsseldorf in May 1995 and ColorSync 2 Golden Master is on the WWDC CD for May 1995. Between 1995 and 2000 die reine Lehre said to render your colour patch chart in the raw condition of the colour device.
    The problem with this is that in a separation the reflectance of the paper (which is how you get to see the colours of the colourants laid down on top of the paper) and the amount of colourant (solid and combinations of tints) gives you the gamut.
    By this argument, you would want to render the colour patch chart with the most colourant, but what if the most colourant produces artifacts? A safer solution is to have primary ink limiting as part of the calibration process prior to rendering of the colour patch chart.
    You can see the progression e.g. in the BEST RIP which since 2002 has been owned by EFI Electronics for Imaging. BEST started by allowing access to the raw colour device, with pooling problems and whatnot, but then introduced a primary ink limiting and linearisation.
    The next thing you need to know is what colour test chart to send to the colour device, depending on whether the colour device is considered an RGB device or a CMYK device. By convention, if the device is not driven by a PostScript RIP it is considered an RGB device.
    The colour patch chart is not tagged, meaning that it is deviceColor and neither CIEBased colour or ICCBased colour. You need to keep your colour patch chart deviceColor or you will have a colour characterisation of a colour managed conversion. Which is not what you want.
    If the operating system is colour managed through and through, how do you render a colour test chart without automatically assigning a source ICC profile for the colourant model (Generic RGB Profile for three component, Generic CMYK Profile for four component)?
    The convention is that no colour conversion occurs if the source ICC device profile and the destination ICC device profile are identical. So if you are targetting your inkjet in RGB mode, you open an RGB colourant patch chart, set the source ICC profile for the working space to the same as the destination ICC profile for the device, and render as deviceColor.
    You then leave the rendered colourant test chart to dry for one hour. If you measure a colourant test chart every ten minutes through the first hour, you may find that the soluble inkjet inks in drying change colour. If you wait, you avoid this cause of error in your characterisation.
    As you will mainly want to work with loose photographs, and not with photographs placed in pages, when you produce a contract proof using Absolute Colorimetric rendering from the ICC profile for the printing condition to the ICC profile for your studio printer, here's a tip.
    Your eyes, the eyes of your client, and the eyes of the prepress production manager will see the white white of the surrounding unprinted margins of the paper, and will judge the printed area of the paper relative to that.
    If, therefore, your untrimmed contract proof and the contract proof from Adobe InDesign or QuarkPress, or a EFI or other proofing RIP, are placed side by side in the viewing box your untrimmed contract proof will work as the visual reference for the media white.
    The measured reference for the media white is in the ICC profile for the printing condition, to be precise in the WTPT White Point tag that you can see by doubleclicking the ICC profile in the Apple ColorSync Utility. This is the lightness and tint laid down on proof prints.
    You, your client and your chosen printer will get on well if you remember to set up your studio lighting, and trim the blank borders of your proof prints. (Another tip: set your Finder to neutral gray and avoid a clutter of white windows, icons and so forth in the Finder when viewing.)
    So far, so good. This leaves the nittygritty of specific ICC profiling packages and specific ICC-enabled applications. As for Aperture, do not apply a gamma correction to your colourant patch chart, or to colour managed printing.
    As for Adobe applications, which you say you will be comparing with, you should probably be aware that Adobe InDesign CS3 has problems. When targetting an RGB printing device, the prints are not correctly colour managed, but basically bypass colour management.
    There's been a discussion on the Apple ColorSync Users List and on Adobe's fora, see the two threads below.
    Hope this helps,
    Henrik Holmegaard
    technical writer
    References:
    http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?14@@.59b52c9b/0
    http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2007/Nov/msg00143.html

  • Printer Setup for Aperture and Epson R1800

    After installing the upgrade to 1.5, something went wrong with my printer setup for both my R1800 and my PictureMate Deluxe.
    I've done the following:
    Reset the printer system.
    Reinstalled the Drivers
    Attempted to Print from Aperture using about 30 + combinations of settings.
    I'm still getting colors that are off and overall dark photos.
    Best Setting appears to be
    Printer Settings
    Print Settings
    Media Type: Premium Glossy Photo Paper
    Color: Color
    Mode: Advanced (Photo, High Speed, Finest Detail, Off)
    Color Management
    Off (No Color Adjustment)
    ColorSync Profile: SPR1800 PrmGlsy Photo.icc
    Black Point Compensation = Checked
    Gamma 1.10
    The resulting pictures appear to be about 1 f-stop or so underexposed and the colors are off (I'm color blind, so I can't say exactly how). I know that it is the setup of the printer settings. If I print the same pictures from Nikon Capture on my Windows computer, the print is perfect. I prefer to use Aperture for my photo work.
    Epson doesn't have Aperture and doesn't understand all of the settings. The Apple Care support tech stated that he is not qualified to answer and said to call back when the Aperture team is working. I've got a ton of Christmas gifts to print out!
    Assistance would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks,
    -William

    william:
    you don't state in your original posting whether or not you've calibrated your monitors, especially to a 2.2 Gamma. in order to get the most accurate screen->print matching you have to hardware calibrate your monitors. this is by far the single most significant improvement i've made in my workflow. prior to calibration my monitors were set to a gamma of 1.8 which is much brighter than 2.2 and this causes you to NOT correct your images with the additional exposure required for proper printing. my prints were always too dark prior to calibration.
    the spyder 2 from color vision is an excellent choice.
    scott
    PowerMac G5 2.5GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.8)   MacBook Pro 2.0GHz

  • Printing differences between Aperture and PS

    I have been using Aperture for almost two years, but I have never been happy with the results I get when making inkjet prints. I have custom built profiles, calibrated monitor, all goo d color management etc., however I get very different prints from the same files when print from Aperture that I do with Photoshop or Lightroom. Why would Aperture interpret the same profiles differently? And what rendering intent is it using? I built some new profiles yesterday with the XRite ColorMunki and the prints made with PS are an excellent match to the monitor. Some of the darker, more saturated blues in the Aperture printed image go bright purple. Aperture prints a bit lighter than the monitor as well. I am printing from the same saved Tif file that was processed in Aperture, and sending it directly to PS out of Aperture.
    Thanks
    Peter

    Assuming your settings in the Aperture print dialog are what they should be - If you are not sure there are plenty of topics on that, the issue could be the following.
    To make a long story short at some point the combination of Leopard, Aperture 2, Tiger printer drivers and printing preferences seem to cause really horrible Aperture printing issues. The only sane procedure I have used and recommend to make it right again are:
    Delete all the printers from system preferences.
    Make sure that you download and install the latest leopard printer drivers (again).
    Trash all of your old Aperture preferences.
    Put all of your correct preferences back in to the print dialog.
    Try again.
    RB

  • Aperture and Pentax istDL

    I am disappointed that aperture does not support Pentax istDL raw images. There are no warnings regarding raw images support on the box. After purchasing the camera, I was looking forward to working with raw images and aperture was the recommended program. Since aperture does not support Pentax raw images, how can I continue to use aperture program, since the program cannot be returned? Is there an upgrade available to allow me to use this EXPENSIVE program with my camera?? I someone has a solution to my problem, please let me know.

    Björn,
    congratulations on your G5 (I hope you didn't buy one with the dreaded nVidia 6600 graphics card - from what I read here in the forum, that card makes Aperture real slow).
    As Aperture costs money while iPhoto comes free, you might think about not using Aperture but rather iPhoto. Here's my 2 cents on this subject.
    iPhoto is great if:
    you want to maintain your JPGs, sort them into various albums, print books, view slide shows, and perform some basic image editing on them.
    Aperture is great if:
    you want to maintain your JPGs and RAWs, sort them into various projects (and within those, into Albums), need to quickly and comfortably assign various keywords (from different keyword sets!) to them so you can easily find them later, and perform some basic image editing on them.
    Frankly, if you work with JPGs only, the only advantage (albeit it can be a huge one) is that Aperture allows you projects and albums, and makes keyword assignment and photo finding and evaluation real easy.
    I'm certainly not a pro, but I do prefer the accuracy of the Pentax' RAWfiles over its JPGs, and I always shoot RAW, even though it takes up a lot more space in the camera's card (and my hard disk). Best is if you try this out yourself, using the provided software (I hope that Samsung actually does provide Mac software; if not, there are various RAW converters out there, most of which come with a trial version, and some of which are free).
    Here's how to try:
    Take a long shot of the street you live in, preferably including the pavement. Do this once with the camera set to JPG and once with the camera set to RAW.
    Process the RAW file and then compare it side-by-side with the JPG. Note at which distance from the point where the photo was taken the street pavement will become blurred. This will be way closer to you in the JPG than in the RAW file.
    Somebody somewhere compared digital photos and film. He (or she) said that taking shots in JPG is similar to working with slide film - once the picture was taken, you can't change that much of it to correct for color calibration, low or high light, etc. With RAW files, you have a lot more room for post processing.
    Kind regards,
    Karl

  • Aperture and Adobe CS on MacBook?

    I was recently told that I would have a hard time running Aperture and Adobe CS on a MacBook. It was recommended I get a MacBook Pro since it has a dedicated Graphics Card.
    Is this true?
    Have any of you had success running Aperture and Adobe CS on your MacBook? What were any problems you experienced. Do you think they warranted spending nearly twice as much on a MacBook Pro?
    I appreciate your replies in advance! Thanks.

    kristinecollier wrote:
    Thank you so much for such a speedy response! I appreciate your help.
    Now you have me considering a desktop rather than a laptop, too. I'd hate to spend so much and then not have an accurate display of what I'm editing.
    Would you think the iMac would be sufficient? What would be an optimum setup in your opinion?
    Well, you may find varying opinions here on this one.
    You can and I do calibrate my MBP with a Spyder from Data color (which incidentally is as good as I've seen with the multi hundred calibrators).
    But truth be told, I do any color adjustments and any tethered shooting via Aperture when connected to my 20" Apple LCD if I can.
    Now, if you were to only get the MBP which is a fine machine i would get the matte screen for sure.
    As far as the iMac goes, I have not worked on one but it's better than the MBP (even though it's glossy lcd). This is because it is an 8bit rather than 6bit color which laptops are.
    I would suggest some hardware calibration tool(check Spyder by datacolor) but for the most part over all color accuracy will be with the stand alone cinema displays connected to the MBP or even the iMac and naturally a MacPro tower.
    If you get the iMac just get the 24" as it's lcd is of a superior quality to the 20" iMac.
    your best solution is what you can best afford so if say the MBP and the stand alone 20 or 23" cinema display or the Tower and maybe the 20" cinema display.
    The stand alone Apple displays are very good especially when calibrated with hardware tool.

  • Another problem printing with Aperture and Epson 2400.

    Hi -
    I posted this on photo.net a while ago and nobody could seem to figure this out. I've searched through here with no help either. Here is the original photo.net post presenting my problem:
    I've been having a problem with my print workflow that started about 6 months ago but has only now gotten to the point that I really need to fix it.
    My equipment: Epson R2400 with stock inks, Aperture (latest version), iMac 2.33Ghz fully loaded and updated. I typically print on Epson Premium Luster or Enhanced Matte (I change K cartridge accordingly).
    Once upon a time, I had this workflow working perfectly. Prints were coming out exactly as I wanted them to, really better than expected. Then something changed, but it wasn't hardware. Somewhere along the line, I'm guessing in a software update, all my profiles changed. I typically do all my adjustments in Aperture, then in the print dialogs do the following:
    +In the 2400 settings, I turn color management off, and in the Print Settings, I select my paper, switch to Advanced, and typically choose Best Photo or whatever quality I'm needing.+
    +Then in the Aperture print settings I choose the ColorSync profile that matches the paper and quality I selected in the above Print Settings window, keep Black Point Compression checked, and I'm off. As I said - this has worked flawlessly up until recently.+
    The one thing I noticed that has changed is the available profiles in Aperture's ColorSync Profile pulldown menu. It used to only show paper profiles specific to each paper and quality, ie. "SPR2400 PremLuster BstPhoto.icc". Now, it shows not only those specific profiles, but also more generic paper profiles, such as "SPR2400 PremiumLuster", with no quality specification.
    The problem is this: When I now select the paper/quality-specific profile, as I used to do, the prints come out all washed-out and flat. It even shows this in the preview window. It's slightly better when I select these new generic paper profiles, but still not like what I had. This is true with both types of paper I use.
    I've attempted all the usual fixes, such as trashing all my profiles and re-loading new ones from Epson, re-installing Aperture and Epson software, and trashing prefs. Heck, I've reloaded all software that even remotely related to photography so many times, I can't even count any more. Nothing - just washed-out, dead-looking prints every time. And it all changed when I noticed those new generic profiles mentioned above.
    I did make one hardware change after I first started experiencing these problems. I went from a PPC Dual 2.8Ghz G5 to the iMac, but as I said, these problems first occurred on the G5 and continued with the new iMac.
    Any thoughts?

    Well, you could dump Aperture only to find that a 2.0 came along with OS 10.5 and fixed your problem, who knows.
    And I wouldn't call 6 months of not being able to print anything at all from Aperture jumping to conclusions. When I press Apple P in any other application I get prints that even unprofiled will come out better than Aperture. It's serious. Not just sorta bad. The ocean looks like sewage water- not just mildly unappealing- sewage.
    The solution for us, I suppose, is to buy calibrator hardware. I guess anyone who is professional should have one of these (and I do not) but I didn't buy Aperture to export for printing.
    As far as how to get Apple to acnowledge this... I don't know. It seems as though they are tired of hearing me talk about this. This is the first post of recent about this that hasn't been deleted by an admin. Who knows? I'm just tired of having to buy all the hardware and all the software that is all supposed to work together and then once you pay, you find that you're up the creek for prints.
    Don't get me started, or I'll start talking about how they don't support my camera make yet (or ever).... (Sigma). As you can imagine, I'm already IMPORTING 16 bit tiffs from my raw converter. I guess I need 3 copies of the same shot to do business in Aperture for now. I need some mylanta.
    Otherwise, love ya Apple!
    P.S. If you are looking for someone with the same hardware and problem as I, it's easy. Check out the print proofing podcast page on O'reilly "Inside Aperture". There's one there in the comments part (that I replied to). Others can be found on this forum.

  • MBP, external monitor and color profiles

    I have been using my 17" MBP for editing photos with Aperture 2.01 and Nikon Capture NX. I calibrate the screen using i1 Display 2. Yesterday I bought a new 24" monitor hoping to use it as a second display for Aperture. Of course I calibrated it immediately after I hooked it up.
    Now I have two color profiles, one for the MBP display and one for the new monitor. I correctly assigned them to the two displays. I set up the displays so that the MBP display is my main desktop (with the icons and the menu bar on it) and the external display as secondary.
    The problem is, when fire up Aperture, colors are displayed correctly on the MBP display but they are over saturated on the external display. The same happens for other applications like Safari and Preview. However when I use Capture NX and Firefox, when I move pictures across the two monitor, I see the same thing (over saturation) but after a very short time (less than one second) the color changes to back normal.
    I suspect that most programs like Aperture and Safari use the color profile for the main display and even though the windows is moved across to the 2nd display, the programs do not change to the right color profile. I see only Capture NX and Firefox are smart enough to change profile when windows are moved across the screens.
    Is this normal or have I done something wrong?

    Hi Lawrence
    Please see these threads
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/aperture_users/discuss/72157603938494562/#comment72 157603938917512
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6607576&#6607576
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1017&thread=26790902
    The Aperture Engineers are aware of this problem.
    Mike

Maybe you are looking for