Color correction, color profile, colorsync, wide gamut,

There hasn't been any reply to the threads about color inconsistency in OS X, so I'm starting another one.
I'm using a wide-gamut monitor attached to a Mac with built-in display. When Preview displays an image, it applies some color correction to it. This leads to unnecessary color warping.
If the image is solid red, #FF0000, it displays it as orange, #FF2500. If I copy and paste the image, it further warps the color to brownish-orange, #DF4616 or the like.
For example, this image, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Solid_red.png , shows up fine in Firefox, but when it's color "corrected" thorough Preview or other OS X applications, it becomes something like http://i.imgur.com/gDiTE.png
Please, before commenting about color calibration, note that *this is not a monitor calibration issue*. My monitors are calibrated well, and no recalibration can fix this.
This is an OS X color correction issue. OS X applies and re-applies color correction schemes, resulting in warped colors on anything but sRGB monitors. This corrupts image colors whenever they are handled.
Someone, please address this long-standing issue.

These forums are the wrong place for getting Apple's attention to your issue. If you want to report this issue to Apple's engineering, send a bug report or an enhancement request via its Bug Reporter system. To do this, join the Apple Developer Connection (ADC)—it's free and available for all Mac users and gets you a look at some development software. Since you already have an Apple username/ID, use that. Once a member, go to Apple BugReporter and file your bug report or enhancement request. The nice thing with this procedure is that you get a response and a follow-up number; thus, starting a dialog with engineering.

Similar Messages

Help with colour profiles and wide gamut monitor

Hi there,
I know this issue must crop up a lot due to its confusing nature but I would really appreciate it if someone could explain what settings I should be using in Photoshop to get accurate colours. I had a look around and couldn't find any other discussions that answered this exactly.
My set up is a Dell 2408WFP monitor which is wide-gamut. I have calibrated this using a huey Pro calibrator (therefore have an accurate system colour profile). My photos are in Canon sRGB space, set by Digital Photo Professional (obviously easily changed if need be).
What I would like is to be able to preview what my photos will look like on a standard sRGB display. When I open a photo in Photoshop with all the settings on their default it looks extremely washed out, very low contrast and saturation. This is nothing like what the photos look like outside of Photoshop, and also not what the photos look like on other (normal gamut) displays. I have tried using the "proof colours" settings. When I have "proof setup" set to Internet Standard sRGB the colours look dreadful, oranges become blood-red, definitely not what I am getting when I view the image on a standard monitor. If I have it set to Monitor RGB then I get colours that look like my monitor outside of Photoshop -- this is the closest out of the three to the result I am actually getting on standard gamut displays. However I know it is not accurate because I know my monitor is wide gamut and therefore more has more contrast (and this is the case).
So what combination of photo colour space, proof colour space, and proof colours settings should I be using? My main priority is just the Joe Average using his TN panel monitor on facebook, I accept that on my monitor they will look slightly different. Settings for print don't concern me at the moment.
Thanks for the help. To anyone who will suggest that I read up on colour profiles... I have, and I understand them to an extent, but there are so many variables here that I am getting lost (monitor profile, photo profile, photoshop settings, DPP settings, faststone viewer's settings, browser's lack of awareness...)
Andrew

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
thekrimsonchin wrote:
I know this issue must crop up a lot due to its confusing nature
You have no idea.
What I'm reading is that you want Photoshop, with its color management enabled, to display your sRGB photos as they would be seen on a true sRGB monitor - i.e., accurately.
Something to always keep in mind, when everything's set right and working properly: Your sRGB image displayed on your wide gamut monitor without color management (e.g., by Internet Explorer) will look bolder and brighter (more color-saturated) than the same image displayed in Photoshop with color-management. There is no getting around this, because the sRGB profile is not equivalent to the monitor profile. Do not expect them to look the same.
It's hard, without being there and seeing what you're seeing, to judge whether your sRGB images are undersaturated compared to what's seen on other monitors. I do know, as one with sRGB monitors myself, that images can look quite vibrant and alive in the sRGB color space.
What we can't know is whether your judgment that your color-managed sRGB images are undersaturated is correct in an absolute sense, or whether you're just feeling the difference between seeing them on your monitor in non-color-managed apps and Photoshop.
Photoshop normally does its color management like this: It combines the information from the color profile in your document with the color profile of the monitor, which it retrieves from a standard place in Windows, and creates a transform used to display the colors.
To have it do this you would NOT want the Proof Colors setting enabled. It is the default behavior.
-Noel
P.S., I don't recall whether DPP is color-managed, but you might consider using Photoshop's raw converter, which definitely shows color-managed output, per the settings I described above.
P.P.S., Your calibrator/profiler should have put the monitor profile in the proper place and set all the proper stuff up in Windows. Is it specifically listed as compatible with the version of Windows you're running?

How to color-correct / color-match a lot of photos to a certain target.

Hi there,
I have something like 1,850 photos, taken in RAW and later converted to DNG, to create a stop motion. All the photos were taken with the same camera (Canon 5D Mk II) and most of them with a 24-70L. All were taken in the same lighting conditions (in an interior, with the house lighting from flourescent lights) and the same day, in a period of maybe 2 or 3 hours. Each "take" was with the exact same camera and exposure parameters.
When processing the photos in Lightroom (using the LR4 beta) I can see some minor but very noticeable differences between color an exposure in the photos of the same "take". The exposure can be more or less automatically corrected by the Matching total exposures (although I think this doesn't work when the exposures are really similar, but there are some subtle differences like in this case, say, something along ~1/5 stop or so), but I haven't found how to try to match the white balance. All of the photos have already been set to a specific WB (I took a ColorChecker Passport at the beginning of the session), but there are still some differences between some of the shots. Some of them look a tad more greener. I blame the flourescent bulbs, but I'm not sure of the real cause.
So, the question is: is there a way to match the color balance of a series of photos to a target one? I really don't want to go photo by photo setting the white balance manually. Is there a tool like the Match total exposures, but for color balance? I have already tried with the automatic white balance and it helps somewhat, but the problem is that the decided WB for the photos is not the one I need, and I need to have the same WB for all the session, and this could change from different takes. The difference between shots is usually around 4 or 5 "points" in the Tint scale, some are with Tint +11, some with +15.
Any ideas? Or any other tool that could process this after? At the end I'll use JPGs to create the stop motion, so if there is a tool that could process the exported jpgs it could work too.
Thanks in advance,
Rodrigo Gómez

Thanks Lee. I thought that could be the cause too. It's strange that some photos taken, for instance, at 1/100 doesn't show that problem but others taken at 1/30 do show that issue... Uhm, now that I think about this, here in Europe the frequency is 50hz, so it would make sense with this numbers.
I was expecting a more optimistic answer! But I've searched everywhere I can think of and haven't found anything, so I guess I'll have to test how much does it show in the stop motion and see if a correction it's really needed.
Thanks!

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work. I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor. I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself. No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%). When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%). When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above. At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use. So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output. Anyone else do this? It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible. I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
profile.
Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
photographer's websites.

Color correcting w/ Effects tab......

I've applied the color correction from the Effects tabl under video filter to a particular clip in a particular sequence. And, I'm attempting to simply start the clip at zero saturation and then end the clip at 100 saturation. I've set key frame points and when I scroll through the clip the saturation numbers change accordingly from 0 to 100, however the color in the clilp does not change at all. The color stays either at 100 or at 0 as I've tried a couple times and have experienced both of these results.
Any suggestions??
Thnx,
BH

I'm using Effects - Video Filters - Color Correction - Color Corrector, and I was simply going for the b&w to color look, fairly cheesy I know, but wanted to try it out and I swear I didn't do anything different this time, it just seemed to work. I'm using the key frames in the "Filters" tab under "Saturation".

Does any1 know how to color correct for white balance/color grade?

hey wasup guys just finished my 1st music video now i need 2 color correct & color grade. i willl be making the video black & white so i was told i need 2 get rid of any color cast in my footage. i 4got 2 set the white balance on my 7d when i was shooting sum sceens so i could use any help possible like what is the best color corrector to use or how to white balance my footage any help is greatly appreciated thanks.

Check the basics and do a Google search. The first three listed will be videos, the next link points to the Adobe Help files.
The basic tools are the same as in Photoshop but there are a bunch of 3rd party plug-ins out there that make the job easier. If you run one of the tutorials found in your Google Search and are stuck get back to us.

RAW output to an adobe rgb and srgb look identical in bridge but different in PS on wide gamut monitor.

Photoshop CS6. Wide gamut HP LP2475w monitor. Spider 3 Elite calibrated. Working space adobe rgb. When outputting a raw to Adobe RGB jpg it looks a bit whacked with color blotches/jumps in PS. The sRGB of it does not. BUT......in bridge they look identical. The adobe rgb jpg almost acts like viewing an image in a non-color aware browser on a wide gamut monitor. Like bridge shows it right but photoshop is showing it whacked out. I can't tell what is lying to me and if there is even a problem with the image. Here is a half second 2 frame gif alternating between the two from a screen cap. http://www.extremeinstability.com/hmm.gif Abrupt blotchy color changes with the adobe rgb when viewed in photoshop. And again, when you look at the two images in bridge they don't show that, they look identical.
Thanks,
Mike

I guess I now learned that Bridge only generates srgb previews. So I see them the same in there I guess. Looks like it comes down to the adobe space and jpg. Oddly enough an 8 bit adobe tiff covers it fine without breaking up. Can see the 3 on this gif. http://www.extremeinstability.com/3.gif

W510/W520 FHD, color profile supplied by Lenovo is wrong (sRGB clone, not wide gamut)

Hi!
I think I discovered a problem with the monitor profile for Thinkpad 95% gamut FHD LCDs:
The "TPLCD95.icm" monitor profile for FHD 95% gamut LCDs seems to be just a copy of the default sRGB profile. Thus it is likely not a calibrated representation of these screens!
This defect has been there since version 4.33 and is still in the latest version 4.35 of the "Monitor file for Windows 7 (32-bit,64-bit), Vista (32-bit,64-bit), XP (32-bit,64-bit) and 2000 - ThinkPad" package, http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-62923
In contrast, the "TPLCD60.ICM" and "TPLCD100.ICM" files of other screen types appear to be proper. Lenovo should provide a similarly produced "TPLCD95.ICM" file and update the drivers! (For the poor people without built-in color sensor.)
Some proof for the unconvinced why the "TPLCD95.icm" profile is not proper (just an sRGB clone):
* The RGB colorants are exactly the same in the "TPLCD95.icm" and "sRGB Color Space Profile.icm" files, e.g. gXYZ = 0.385,0.717,0.097. (In "TPLCD100.ICM" the gXYZ colorant is 0.226,0.680,0.094 and in "AdobeRGB1998.icc" it is 0.205,0.626,0.061.)
* The tone repro curves of "TPLCD95.icm" and "sRGB" are both 1024 elements and identical for rTRC, gTRC and bTRC. (In the "TPLCD100.ICM" file it consists of only 9 points, presumably measured, and there are different curves for R, G and B.)
* The suffix of "TPLCD95.icm" file is in lowercase letters, indicating that it was made in a different workflow than the "TPLCD100.ICM" and "TPLCD60.ICM files". Also the file sizes are very different.
* By experiment: Set the monitor profile to "TPLCD95.icm" and open an image in Windows Photo Viewer (for example the Chrysanthemum.jpg image from the Sample Pictures folder in Win7). Then repeat with sRGB as monitor profile, you'll get the same color. Repeat with "TPLCD100.ICM" to get a reduced gamut, as expected from a wide gamut profile. That's how "TPLCD95.icm" should be too, except of course calibrated for the 95% gamut LCD not 100% RGBLED.
In the meanwhile, could anyone with a sensor calibrated W510/W520 95% gamut FHD screen care to share their ICM/ICC file?
Yours,
Mikael Sterner

As a workaround, I can suggest the excellent QuickMonitorProfile tool by Eberhard Werle: http://quickgamma.de/QuickMonitorProfile/indexen.html
It can create a profile just based on the rgb chromaticities, white point and gamma in the EDID information from the monitor. On my W520 FHD it reads out rxy=0.676/0.314, gxy=0.215/0.665, bxy=0.141/0.069, wp=D65, gamma=2.2. This matches what is in the LCD panel datasheet: http://www.notebook-lcd.ru/pdf/B156HW01_V_4.pdf
The created synthetic profile is better than nothing, and is the minimum what Lenovo should have included.

AE, ICC color profiles, QuickTime player and wide gamut displays

Hey there!
I was inspired by @AdobeAE 's recent tweet about color management to look further into the subject. We've historically not bothered with it, but are keen to enter the color managed world!
I started in Photoshop, doing tests with working spaces and destination spaces to get my head around how the whole thing works. One thing I quickly gathered was that our Monitors (Eizo S2243W) are wide gamut, which can create problems. For example, if you make an image in the sRGB space in PS, then save it out as a jpeg without embedding the profile, the colours become over-saturated, as any viewing application won't know how to translate the colors. Images created in the Adobe 1998 did not display the same shift when saved 'untagged' - I assume because the gamut of the monitor is closer to Adobe 1998, so even if no transformation occurs the colours are perceptually similar.
For still images all this is fine though, as you can always embed the profile so the viewing app knows how to translate the colours for your particular display.
The problem comes with video. It seems as though it is not possible to embed a color profile with, say, a ProRes QuickTime. If you create a comp in AE using the sRGB colour space, then export the movie you'll potentially have the same over saturated colour problem when viewing the resulting file on a wide gamut display.
So how is one supposed to overcome this, except for turning colour management off?
Any help greatly apprecaited!
Cheers, sCam
Simon Cam
Creative Technical Director
Superglue
http://www.wearesuperglue.com

Not too many people will be watching your movie on a wide-gamut screen. You'd be better off working in an SRGB mode, if your monitor allows. Colour magement is a poisened chalice, wether you are working with still images or movies. The internet is not colour-managed and everything wide gamut will look oversaturated and garish.

Problem: Color Management/Save for Web on Wide Gamut Monitor

Hi,
I've got a problem with color management - I thought I understood it, but it seems as if didn't. So I'm trying to kindly ask for help.
I'm printing, and also trying to save an image for Web.
My setup:
- Win 7, CS 5
- Calibrated Wide Gamut Monitor (eizo cg223w)
- Photoshop set to ProPhoto (I don't want to start a discussion adobergb vs prophoto)
- Save for Web and Devices, Embed Color Profile, Convert to SRGB
- Viewing in Firefox 3.6 with Color Management enabled
Problem:
Image: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/311345/luchs-1024.jpg
If I compare the file in Firefox and Photoshop, the Firefox presentation is slightly more saturated - and I have no idea why.
I thought it should work with the above workflow.
Here is a screenshot where you can clearly see a difference (Note: the additional over-saturation here is caused by the wide gammut monitor when taking screenshots, in reality its not as dramatic as that): http://imgur.com/MFPbU but you can clearly see the difference.
I would be very very thankful for any pointers what I'm doing wrong in my workflow!
Thanks in advance,
Christoph

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
ch_bla wrote:
- Monitor calibrated
- Edit under ProPhoto RGB, 16 bit raw files
- Save for Web and Devices, Embed Color Profile, Convert to SRGB
Is this the preferred way?
It's a reasonable and correct way to do it, assuming you want to embed a profile in the images.
Since at least in some browsers and cases the colors selected within the HTML elements must match image colors, one can sometimes make a case for not embedding any profile at all, but that's really looking backwards. Browsers are moving forward toward not only managing colors in images but also in the HTML elements themselves. If you want your images accurately portrayed in as many places as possible you're doing the right thing looking forward.
Personally I embed the sRGB profile in my web images, as you are doing. And I check things primarily with IE and Safari.
Unlike you, I prefer to edit using the sRGB color space, but that's just personal preference. I find it more convenient to use File - Save As instead of File - Save For Web & Devices, and I get caught by gotchas less often this way. Your preference ensures you don't lose any colors at the extremes of the gamut while editing and it could easily be argued that that's better, depending on what image products you produce.
As for the article you mentioned, anyone who would set their preferred working space to Monitor RGB or use Proof Colors in normal editing is asking for trouble, and may not understand color management at all.
-Noel

Over saturated web colors & Wide Gamut monitors

I'm trying to create a new portfolio website but I'm going crazy with the colour saturation when viewing the site on my wide gamut monitors. Reds are horrendously over-saturated compared to my colour managed apps like Photoshop and even OS X Preview.
The website looks OK on the ipad mini and iPhone 4 and looks a little better on OS X 10.8, but on my main workstation (which uses 10.7.5) its horrible. I have a Dell U2711 IPS monitor which has a wide gammut, and all my web browsers (Safari, Firefox, Chrome) and the Finder of all things display my images super-saturated. Doing a Quick View in the Finder shows the image correctly but icon view is super saturated. Very odd.
Is there a way to fix this? I've tried stripping out the embedded sRGB profile from the web images but I get the same when I preview the image in a browser. Choosing Proof>Monitor Colour in Photoshop gives the same oversaturated result.
I use Xrite Colormunki for screen callibration.

I'm using the Spider Pro to calibrate my monitor and everything looks great in Photoshop, Illustrator and Firefox 3.5 with color management turned on. But the lack of color management in Fireworks is still a problem because I'm not seeing the colors the way they will look on most people's monitors. I can't design unless I can see what most people will be seeing.
Fireworks should be using that ICC profile that my calibrator generated but instead its sending the colors to the monitor raw. This is what's causing the over-saturation. This really is quite unacceptable.

Firefox 3.6 color management incorrect on wide-gamut monitors?

Hi,
I'm having a problem with sRGB JPEGs exported from Lightroom (2.7) that I don't actually think is LR's fault, but was wondering if anyone here has experienced this.
What I'm finding is that these sRGB JPEGs don't display correctly on my wide-gamut Dell 2408WFP monitor under Windows 7 in Firefox 3.6.9 or in the Windows image viewer. Now, this isn't the standard problem people used to complain about on wide-gamut monitors, where sRGB images came out looking oversaturated (pinkish) in FF because older versions of FF didn't do color management; the newer Firefox seems to be doing color management in general. The problem I'm seeing in my photos is that dark areas are becoming darker and losing detail, and midrange shadows are turning into a grayish green.
What's odd is that these JPEGs look fine in Safari on the same machine and the same monitor (and they also look fine if I load them into PS). That suggests to me that Firefox (and Windows) are doing something wrong, probably related to the fact that the monitor is wide-gamut.
Has anyone encountered this problem?
Thanks,
nj

Jim,
I think you are right in saying that it is a crap shoot. There are some interesting points in your post though.
The general public will be viewing with a monitor and browser that are not color managed. Won't my v4 images diplay fairly well under this situation (at least much better than with ff3.6 and a monitor with a v4 profile)?
That will work just fine indeed. It is arguable whether it will look "better". The variation between monitors is much larger than the benefit you gain from using v4. One thing that will work better is the out of sRGB gamut colors. You won't get the posterization using the v4 sRGB profile that you get with the v2 sRGB. For some images (think shots of flowers) that might be a major benefit. If all your colors are in sRGB that is obviously not a benefit at all. The big disadvantage of using v4 sRGB is that it adds quite a few extra kilobytes (about 60) to your image. For example, I just exported from Lightroom a simple web sized image at 1000 pixels long side at good quality and in v4 it was 262 kB, while in v2 sRGB it weighs in at only 209 kB. I see no real difference between these images on my wide-gamut monitor. This difference in filesize can be important and at smaller sizes is really going to matter.
What about a wide gamut monitor that's not color managed, running a browser that doesn't support v4?
The v4 sRGB image will look just as badly oversaturated as the normal sRGB one. Try it and you'll see. Perhaps slightly less oversaturated but the difference is very small in general. The one thing that you should realize of course is that if these users are running a non-managed browser on a wide gamut display, they are likely conditioned to oversaturated images and probably will never even notice. These users are lost anyway. It's best not to even try to target them. Target normal users who generally run unmanaged browsers on unmanaged sRGB-like displays. The variation between these displays is far larger than the slight advantage you get from using sRGB v4 and in my mind at least it is not worth the added size in the picture and the loss of color management in Firefox. Of course, you might have different priorities.
P.S. the numbers of users using unmanaged browsers are waning quite quickly if I am to believe my website's stats - IE is way down and both Safari and Firefox are up. Chrome (not managed) is coming up too but not as fast as IE is decreasing. Apparently (I haven't tried as I don't do windows) the latest IE does respect embedded color profiles, but alas it doesn't translate to the monitor profile. That is of course basically useless.

Screensaver off color with wide gamut monitor

I have a NEC SpectraView 241 calibrated wide gamut monitor and an older 15" AppleStudio monitor (also calibrated). The screensaver colors are OK on the AppleStudio monitor, but completely off on the wide gamut monitor, as if the software was not taking into account its color profile: greens and reds are too saturated.
As I can't find any post with a similar problem, I must be doing something wrong; but I can't see what!
Oh, and by the way, Photoshop or GraphicConverter photos are perfect on both screens...
Any idea?
MacOS 10.9.4
Early 2009 MacPro 2x2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
20 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512 MB

Finally fixed by modifying SpectraView Profiler Preferences to set the Profile in the system ColorSync Folder rather than the user ColorSync Folder...

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

Photoshop Color Settings for Wide Gamut Monitor

Hey guys,
I have a wide gamut monitor (HP LP2475w) which has already been calibrated. My question isn't so much about that, but the settings I should be using inside of Photoshop (CS5). As far as color settings (ctrl+shift+k) goes, what am I supposed to use? I have sRGB as the rgb working space right now. (never use CMYK), Gray % Spot = dot gain 20%, and preserve profiles are ticked on for all 3. Am I supposed to be using Adobe RGB in RGB working space to get the most out of my monitor? I'm asking because it would be embarrassing if I had a wide gamut monitor and am working within a sRGB color cap. Please enlighten me with the proper photoshop color settings, so that it works well across the board (browser compatibility, etc)
As a FYI, I am a professional digital artist who specialize in illustrations for print campaigns. So far from what I've seen, whatever's been printed out of what I produce from this monitor has come out pretty much looking the same, so I'm not worried about that. Again, I just want to make sure I'm not careless and am using settings which doesn't make use of a wide gamut monitor.
Thanks for your input in advance!

I think a lot of users believe that the Color Settings have much bigger role than what they actually do most of the time.
When working with images you have to be always aware about the color space the image is currently displayed in.
In Photoshop the displayed color space of an image is obtained in the following order of priority:
1. from the choice in View > Proof Setup menu when the View > Proof Colors is checked.
2. when the Proof Colors is off, from the embedded profile.
3. when the Proof Colors is off and when the image is without a color profile (untagged) from the Working Color space selected in the Color Settings.
This image shows how to check the color profile of an image - I keep it permanently on.
As you can see, the color spaces selected for working spaces in the Color settings affect the display of images only when they are untagged (without color profiles). The color settings also set the default choice of a color space when you create a new document but you can always select another color space form the Advance section of the dialog that appears when you choose File > New. You can also assign a color space to any image by using Edit > Assign Profile. So, if you never work with untagged images, you really don't need to care at all what your working spaces in your Color Settings are set to. You can use the Color Management Polices in the Color settings as a tool that will ask you what to do when you have profile mismatch when you paste. Personally I never use these because I'm always aware of the color space of the pasted content. Also the conversion method set in the Color Settings will be used when pasting. If you want different conversion method paste the content in a new document created with the color space of the clipboard content and then choose Edit > Convert to Profile and after that copy and paste in the desired document with the same color space.

Color correction, color profile, colorsync, wide gamut,

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for