Color management, PS5 and Epson 3880

Hi
I need help with printing on my new 3880 through Photoshop CS5 on an iMac 10.6.8. Using Photoshop CS5 as 'color handling'-- the color mode is greyed out (can't change it) in the print settings. How can I change the color modes? Mostly turn off color management so I can use ICC printer profiles?
Thanks
L

I've got the Epson Stylus Pro 3880 and Color Handling > Color Mode is grayed-out in CS2 and CS3 using the Mac driver 6.6 on OSX10.5.8. I'm not sure why that part of the driver's print dialog is disabled, but no matter. Take a look at my screens below ( note: these are from Tiger OSX10.4.11 via CS2, but should apply to your arrangement:
Above just use the RGB from your PS Color Settings, here I set it for Adobe RGB and whatever paper you are using...
And above I set Color Management using "Color Controls" and again, the reference to Adobe RGB in the "Mode".
So, I believe I would use the Color Management > Printer Manages Color ( see next screen shot below from OSX 10.5.8 and CS3 )...
In all dialogs, Adobe RGB is used mainly because it was established in the document's Color Mode Settings from Photoshop.
Try these settings above, they work for me.
Message was edited by: John Danek

Similar Messages

How do I turn off color management in my Epson Stylus Photo R1900

How do I turn off color management in my Epson Stylus Photo R1900 printer? I am using the laetest Epson driver, I am using Adobe Photoshop CS5 and I'm using OSX 10.5.8.
Thanks
Joe

I have researched the matter a lot and I,
along with many others, still have problems with this complicated
subject.
Color management is as simple in theory as Honoring a Source Profile and CONVERTING it to a Target Profile (monitor or printer) for Proofing.
But yes, we work at the mercy of the rocket scientists who try to dumb an extremely complicated process down so regular folks (like me) can make it work — trouble is I think their approach needs a bit more distilling and common sense sometimes...but it is very doable once you put in the time to figure it out, just follow the CHAIN in your workflow if you're still having problems.
If you want a "simple button" try staying in sRGB and printing out of Apple Preview app using OEM standard papers matched to your printer and OEM ink set.

Color-managed printing to Epson 870

I have never succeeded in getting a color-managed print workflow to my Epson Stylus Photo 870 printer using PSE5 (or 4 or 3). The prints are consistently darker than what I see on screen, though the colors otherwise seem about right.
I'm pretty familiar with color management generally, and I have read the tutorials in the Missing Manual and at computer-darkroom.com. I will describe my recent experiments.
Perhaps someone who uses this printer (or a similar Epson printer) can offer some insight. What is noteworthy about these Epson printers is that they come with only a single ICC profile, rather than one profile per media type. The processing to compensate for media differences occurs within the driver. This complicates the color management story.
1. Computer setup: Windows XP SP2, Samsung SyncMaster 193P LCD display.
2. Monitor calibration: This monitor has programmable internal color conversion. I used the MagicTune utility to tune the monitor to sRGB. I then used Adobe Gamma to confirm that this is essentially an sRGB monitor; that is, the profile produced by Adobe Gamma yields an appearance that is indistinguishable from the standard sRGB profile.
3. Photos are JPEGs tagged as sRGB by the camera. I am printing them from PSE5 Organizer. Color management set to "Print" (AdobeRGB). Paper is Epson Glossy Photo Paper. Media type selected in the driver is Photo Paper.
In the following experiments, I varied the Print Space setting in PSE's Print Options and the Custom > Advanced color settings in the Epson driver.
Experiment 1: Print Space: "Same as Source". Driver: "ICM". Result: somewhat dark prints.
Experiment 2: Print Space: "Epson Stylus Photo 870". Driver: "No Color Adjust". Result: even darker prints, with a slight color cast.
Experiment 3: Print Space: "Epson Stylus Photo 870". Driver: "ICM". Result: same as experiment 3.
Experiment 4: Print Space: "Same as Source". Driver: "PhotoEnhance". Result: by far the closest to what I see on the screen, and (subjectively) the best rendition of the original scene.
Of course, experiment 4 is depending on some magic processing in the Epson driver, rather than being a true ICC color-managed workflow. I'd like to figure out why my attempts at a color-managed workflow aren't working right.

"So it seems that Organizer and Editor do color management differently when
printing.... I would not have expected this; it seems like a bug."
My Epson 870 finally died. But, while it was working I did manage to get it
to work very well in a fully color managed workflow. I calibrated my
monitor with a hardware calibration device. The generic 870 ICC profile
that came with the printer gave me prints that were too dark compared to my
calibrated monitor. I had a custom profile made for the printer for each
specific paper I use and that made all the difference. For PSE 3, I always
printed only from the editor and used a fully color managed work flow
specifying the custom printer profile as the print space. The Epson printer
driver was set to custom and in the advanced tab, the "No Color Adjustment"
setting for color management was selected.
I didn't like to print from Organizer because I didn't care for the way it
handled things. The creations portion of Organizer didn't pick up all the
organizer color settings either if I recall correctly. The different
behavior is not so much a bug as it is two different programs that are
packaged together and loosely interact -- Organizer began life as Adobe
Album.
I don't know about PSE 4 and 5 as I went to Photoshop CS2 instead of
upgrading PSE. I still have PSE 3 installed, but I seldom use it anymore.
I would have thought that the newer versions would have done something about
the Organizer printing issues but it sounds like that hasn't happened yet.

Color management: Response and addendum

In course of seeking answers to my own question (5/21--photo displays), I saw a whole series of discussions about color and monitor calibration. (Have not but will read.) Although a two-year newbie to Elements, this is one area I believe I have acquired some expertise after many discussions and meetings with professional color lab owners, techs, photo store photographers, and techs at the leading colorimeter makers, so I can share some thoughts with all. Hopefully, it will not mislead--I also have a question for y'all set out at bottom:
     1. Anyone interested in color issues should (polite form of must) buy themself a copy of Bruce Fraser, Murphy and Bunting's Color Management. I have only made my way a small part thru, but it is an eye-opener and essential reading for anyone involved with photography. Even if you do have to read it several times over to understand fully.
     2. I had some bad tech support experience with my first colorimeter, and nothing but good results and support with the second (Eye One Display 2, made by X-Rite).
     3. When I first started doing Elements editing, I was very disappoionted with the diffence between what I was seeing on monitor and what was coming back from processor. That is another world of explanations. But that is the origin of my having sought over many months good advice, and there is much bad or ignorant advice out there.
     4. (And BTW, is there ever a difference in color production as one goes up ladder from Walgreens/CVS to Wolf (the first two named are sometimes in reverse order) to local higher quality camera store (no chain), to professional photgraphy color lab (and even between some of them!)
     5. In trying to replicate as much as possible what I see on monitor (and I replaced my entire computer and monitor in order to maximize my photography) I make adjustments to monitor in conjunction with colorimeter so that I am within the X-Rite suggested ranges on that end and yet reasonably close to the processed print.
     6. Even with all that, I do some tweaking of photos at end of editing process in order to further the replication process. It has been a process learning the variable extent I can do this, but because some of this gets into "thou shalt not's" and other frowned upon techniques, I will only say that one must make one's own decisions, balancing factors etc.
     7. I am reminded to do a resetting of the colorimeter every three weeks--I generally go 4-6.
If I can help, let me know--because my inbox gets flooded when I click the get email option, I am going to check the forum for next few days. Hopefully there are many far more knowledgeable than I who may give me new insights.
Now for my question: Our son is going thru the Mac vs. PC debate after his laptop died of old age. Which brought me to google "mac vs. PC" (some good pieces there--one entitled "PC vs. Mac: the Straight Scoop" and the Popular Mx article. Both very balanced. I have too many other pursuits so after listening to the debate over the years, had decided I can do without. BUT:
Q.No 1: Is there any consensus among photoshop/elements users in favor of one over the other? (Some refs to better apple monitors caught my attention, although in light of colorimeters etc., I don't know that it would really do that much).
Q.2: Assume there was some very strong reason to switch to Mac, what happens with all the photos now stored? (It would have to be an extraordinary reason to get me to go through al the hassle of switching all my programs so I am >90% certain I would not, but just wondering if I am a missing participant on another "fourth dimension".) Thanks.

I've got the Epson Stylus Pro 3880 and Color Handling > Color Mode is grayed-out in CS2 and CS3 using the Mac driver 6.6 on OSX10.5.8. I'm not sure why that part of the driver's print dialog is disabled, but no matter. Take a look at my screens below ( note: these are from Tiger OSX10.4.11 via CS2, but should apply to your arrangement:
Above just use the RGB from your PS Color Settings, here I set it for Adobe RGB and whatever paper you are using...
And above I set Color Management using "Color Controls" and again, the reference to Adobe RGB in the "Mode".
So, I believe I would use the Color Management > Printer Manages Color ( see next screen shot below from OSX 10.5.8 and CS3 )...
In all dialogs, Adobe RGB is used mainly because it was established in the document's Color Mode Settings from Photoshop.
Try these settings above, they work for me.
Message was edited by: John Danek

Soft proofing issue in CS4 using iMac and Epson 3880?

I have had great success printing to an Epson r1900 never using soft proofing. Purchased a new 3880 and having colour problems. A suggestion was made to use soft proofing. Monitor is calibrated using iOne-looks very good to the eye. Working space from camera to PS is Adobe RGB. I am setting my custom output device to ICC profile for paper (ilford and hanhmule) Is this correct/ 9or should I be setting to Epson Apple RGB? On screen, the proof color looks WAY off the monitor non-proof version, which is spot on, but when I print the image it doesn't look at all like the "soft proof" it looks more like the monitor version. I have read everything I can find-printing on the 3880 is a crap-shoot. Sometimes it matches the screen, sometimes it doesn't and when it doesn't it also isn't matching the soft proof.
Suggestions?
Thanks!
NJ

Victoria....
Seems I was to much an optimist...heh
As I mentioned I did get LR4b on the Imac to find the icc profiles of my epson 2880 but while I was trying to figure out why it would not read my epson 3880 icc profiles and others LR4b suddely corrupted the pref filels once again and I was at ground zero... Just like I was when I first posted on the forum.
I again threw out the LR4b pref files and it brought back the epson 2280 profiles only??
So why can't it find my epson 3880 icc profiles or others and only the 2880's... and why do the pref files corrupt. I was actually soft proofing when the corruption took place and the icc profiles disappeared.
I'm running the exact same OS on my Macbook Pro and none of these issues have surfaced.
Oh... I did notice that the fact I require authenication to trash LR4b on the Imac did excist on the Macbook Pro as well ... so I'm guessing this normal or I have two wierd computers.
Got to love computers..
Thanks
George

LR Color Management - Calibration and Monitor (not your typical post)

Hi everybody,
I see that there are still many issues around color management and printing in LR. I have had similar problems in past and Im still trying to work though them. The most touted problem is not calibrating or having a bad monitor profile. Well, I have tried calibrating my display with worse results. I get better results with an un-calibrated display, not exact results, but closer than with a calibrated display. My only computer is a Dell Latitude D830 with an LCD display and Nvidia Quadro 140M graphics card with a Spyder2 Suite calibration tool.
After doing a fair bit of research online and speaking to other photographers (pro and amateur) Ive learned that laptop displays are notoriously difficult to calibrate due to their inability to display a wide range of color and contrast. There is also no way to adjust white point, RGB or any other setting on my display, only brightness and contrast. (perhaps a big part of the problem?)
I was told that only high end displays (NEC, LaCie, Eizo etc @ $1000,00 this being the low end, and up) were the only way to get accurate colors. Others had said that LG and Samsung make a decent display at the $300.00 price point that would deliver good results but not pro level color management. Other than that go, back to an old CRT display. What is a semi-pro level display that renders excellent color that I wont have to re-mortgage my house to pay for?
So heres my question to all of those who have said you need to calibrate and you have a bad profile can you please tell us your system set up (i.e. display, calibration tool, room lighting and set up etc..)?
Im really interested in what you are doing more, better or differently than everyone else.
Thanks,
DC

>Im really interested in what you are doing more, better or differently than everyone else.
Nothing much. Same calibrator in addition to another Huey Pro which gives almost indistinguishable results. I use both a Apple Mac Book Pro and a Mac Pro with a 30" DELL wide gamut adobeRGB display. Colors on the two are identical (if they're not outside of the laptop's gamut) and identical to prints from labs and direct prints. Of course these displays are between far better and quite a bit better than the display on a typical Dell laptop that are notoriously bad. One of the things I have to do on the laptop is to get the display at the right angle. The trick I use is to have a window open with this image: http://www.normankoren.com/monitor_test_txt22.png
from this website: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
If you're looking at your monitor at the right angle and you have calibrated the display correctly, the color should look homogeneous (i.e. completely neutral and the same grey everywhere). If you cannot find an angle at which this is correct, than it is likely your monitor can simply not be calibrated or that your calibrator is defective (there was a batch of defective Spyders a while ago). In general, it is certainly not true that laptop displays cannot be calibrated.
>I was told that only high end displays (NEC, LaCie, Eizo etc @ $1000,00 this being the low end, and up) were the only way to get accurate colors. Others had said that LG and Samsung make a decent display at the $300.00 price point that would deliver good results but not pro level color management.
They are quite wrong and a rather snooty thing to say. The point of these high priced displays is that they will give better color in [B]non[/B]-colormanaged applications, but with a good calibrator, a reasonably good screen and [B]correct color management [/B](such as that in Lightroom, Photoshop, preview.app, Safari, etc.) you will get about as good color as the more expensive displays. Some of these, such as the EIZO give you wider gamuts higher bit color, or hardware adjustable white point, which are also a major selling points if you're doing very critical work but only if paired with good calibration and managed apps. Pro level color management is a function of the calibrator and the software - and only in part of the display. Most displays, with a few exceptions, can be made to give good color, as long as you use a hardware calibrator and managed apps.

Aperture and Epson 3880....need help!

I just purchased a new Epson 3880 and have an image I want to print onto 13x19 paper.....I set it all up as a custom print setting and I can only get a 8x10 image on the 13x19 photo paper.....anyone have experience getting these two to sync????

You must choose the size of paper and the size of the print wanted -- these are in two different settings.
Btw, 13 x 19 is a standard size choice -- should not require custom setting.
Ernie

Cannot print out correct colors using Mac and Epson Artisan 1430

I recently switched from using Illustrator on my PC to using Illustrator on my IMAC. My display on the PC and the display on the IMAC show the graphics in the exact same colors. When I print a graphic from my PC in Illustrator on my Epson printer it is identical to the display on my PC. When I print the same graphic from my IMAC on my Epson printer, the color is not the same - it is a bit off. I have tried everything - what should I do?

Just checking, was this the driver you downloaded?
Printer Driver v8.31
Intel-based Macs with OS X (v10.4.11 - v10.6.x), PowerPC Macs with OS X (v10.4.11 - v10.5.8)
epson13988.dmg - 28.1MB - posted on 09/14/10
http://tinyurl.com/2bmj3as
Or this one...
Drivers and Utilities Combo Package
Intel-based Macs with OS X (v10.4.11 - v10.6.x), PowerPC Macs with OS X (v10.4.11 - v10.5.8)
epson13990.dmg - 80.8MB - posted on 09/14/10

Color management in Illustrator CS6 and InDesign CS 6-settings & workflow questions.

I've read the color management posts and the Adobe help file regarding the Pantone + libraries and the new differences between CS5 & 6. However I'm still a bit confused as to just what my settings should be, and a few posts offer different pieces of advice, so I'm looking for clarification. I don't need to work with legacy CS files, so I don't want to swap out the old Pantone libraries for the Plus ones. However I still have my old Pantone Solid, Coated and Uncoated swatchbooks and until I can afford the new Plus swatchbooks, I'll depend on those. I'm hoping the difference between Pantone 321U and Pantone+ 321 is not great.
If I'm preparing a file for print and to be placed into an InDesign CS6 document for print, I know both document color modes should be CMYK—got that. In Illustrator CS6, I'm assuming I would use a Pantone+ Uncoated swatch (remember I'm using the old Pantone Uncoated swatch book as a visual guide and praying that the difference isn't too noticeable.)
1. In the Swatch settings pallette, should I set the Spot Color option to use the first choice—use LAB values specified by the book manufacturer, or use CMYK values from the manufacturer process books.
2. In the View menu, should I select Overprint Preview to get a (more or less-I know the drill) closer monitor color to what will be printed.
I don't want to fool around with trying to set the CMYK values as listed in Pantone Color Bridge CMYK EC (found on Scribed here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33104/Pantoner-Color-BridgeTm-Cmyk-Ec ), and I'm not even sure of the point in doing so or what it would do for me.
What I want is to depend on a swatch book, select the named swatch from the Pantone library, have all my settings set properly, then place it in InDesign, then send the file to a digital printer and get as close an approximation to the swatch book selection as possible. I need monitor color settings to reflect the swatches as best possible.
When I can afford it, should I opt for the Pantone+ Coated and Uncoated swatchbooks, or the Color Bridge? I'm usure of the difference, and if there are any Illustrator or InDesign settings that would need to be changed depending.
As a corollary to this questions, once the settings are OK in Illustrator, what do they need to be in InDesign? There are settings for Ink Manager (all spots to process or use standard LAB values for spots, the Color palette has check options for LAB, CMYK, RGB.
I'm not sure what needs to be set in InDesign to make sure colors are consistent between what is set in Illustrator and then what InDesign does.

Let me try to help you further:
1. In Illustrator's Swatch settings pallette, should the Spot Color Mode option be set to use:
a. CMYK
b. LAB
c. Book Color (not sure if this refers to the pantone swatchbook)
- I would use "c" - Book Color. This is the file going to the printer which will use Spot Color on press. For a copy of the file to be output by your Canon, use "a" - CMYK.
2. In the View menu should Overprint Preview be checked, and why, and would it differ based on the settings for #1.
- Only if the color was transparent ( which it isn't ) would overprint preview be of any use or you use a tint value of the Spot color and a black, but even then you may not be able to detect any change in the screen view. I typically do not use any overprint preview and I do not rely on the monitor for any color deisions. You could be different and that is OK. Let me know if you are able to detect any deviates using overprint preview.
I'm sorry for being a little short. There is a lot of confusion about these issues and Adobe and Pantone are not making things any easier.
The key is your Canon will not be able to print accurate Spot color without a RIP for the necessary color tables and conversions for that particular printer. In your case, it will be necessary to build a CMYK file to print a somewhat approximate representation of that specific Spot color. Another frustrating part of this matrix is CMYK cannot match all Pantone Spot Colors.

Managing Color with LR and the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 10.1.2.0 printer driver

I would like help understanding how to manage color in LIghtroom with the Canon Pro 9000 10.1.2.0 printer driver. When I ask LR to manage color in the Printing Module Color Management Profile, it warns me to turn off the printer managing color. But I cannot find where to do this in the driver.
The Color Options menu in the driver gives an additional choice for "Color Mode", but there are no choices here except "Standard", "Linear" or "Tone". The only Canon documentation I can find shows a choice to turn off printer management here, but this driver doesn't give me that choice.
If I look in the driver's "Color Matching", I see only two choices: ColorSync or Vendor Matching. ColorSync brings up Canon profiles like "Pro9000 Fine Art Photo Rag", but selecting one of these gives a warning of unexpected results. This pushes me back to Vendor Matching. But is this turning off the printer driver and leaving it to Lightroom?
Right now, I am getting the best results from choosing "Managed by Printer" in LR's Color Management Profile, and setting "Color Matching" in the Canon driver to "Vendor Matching". If I instead choose one of the Canon profiles in LR's Color Management Profile (and it tells me to turn off the printer managing, which I cannot do), then my prints have a slightly bluer color cast.
Is there a way to turn off the printer managing color in this driver and turn this over to LR, or am I getting the best results possible with the printer managing color anyway?
I am using a 2.4 GHz Intel iMac with OS 10.5.4, 2 gigs SDRAM, standard ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro video card. I downloaded the Canon printer driver from their website, so I assume this is the latest. there is another driver available at their website, but for a lower bit depth. Should I abandon the 10.1.2.0 for this other one? I work with Nikon D300 NEFs, and I assumed the higher bit depth printer driver will work better with these images.
Any help will be greatly appreciated!

Dear DYP: Unfortunately, those choices are not available in the 10.1.2.0 Canon Printer driver. There are only 2 radio buttons, ColorSync and Vendor Matching. ColorSync then provides a drop-down menu, with no choice for turning off the printer driver.
But I think I found the answer. I found a deeply buried FAQ on the Canon site (no direct URL; sorry!) Here it says:
"Issue: How do I disable the printer driver color correction when using the CUPS driver in Mac OS X 10.5.x?
Solution: Change color management options for printing (Mac OS X 10.5.x)
Change color management options for printing
Open the document you wish to print.
Click 'File' and then click 'Print.'
Note: If the Print window contains only two pop-up menus, click the triangle beside the Printer pop-up menu for expanded options.
Select 'Color Matching' from the Print Options pop-up menu.
Select 'ColorSync' if you want the application you are using, and not the printer driver, to control the color management of the printed output.
Note: If you are using Adobe Photoshop CS2 or CS3 and have selected 'Let Photoshop Determine Colors', the 'Color Matching' from the Print Options pop-up menu is automatically set to 'ColorSync.'
Select 'Vendor Matching' if you want the printer driver to control the color management of the printed output."
I tried it, and chose "Automatic" as a choice in ColorSync. The choices under "Color Options" are then greyed out, implying that the Canon driver is now turned off.
The prints came out great, with no color cast, and a little brighter than the printer managed prints.
So, Vendor Managed means printer manages, ColorSync means LR manages.
Thanks, everyone, for keeping me going on tracking this down!

Horrible Color Management in Windows 8.1 and PhotoshopCC (solution)

Perhaps you what happened to me. Windows 8.1 and in my case a laptop Asus Intel Core I5.
CC install the brand new Photoshop (or other) and color management is Horrible ... no ... the following.
The black and white is sepia ... And the colors are nothing real touch all settings and no result ... I almost went crazy. I think the solution is going to cost more people. And when they discover is a great relief.
We go to the control panel
The first will .... Color Management.
The second will .... Advanced Options.
And choose "Adobe RGB 1998".
And thus solved
En español. Seguir este link. http://rapulsel.blogspot.com.es/2013/12/gestion-de-color-horrible-en-windows-81.html

Rapulsel, color-management cannot successfully be taught on a forum in a "for dummies" fashion. It's been tried and usually it leads to trouble.
Color-management is non-trivial, and it's the kind of thing that can make you want to run away from it screaming before the light finally goes on and you get your head around it.
However, after that you will understand it and you will find you can solve your color-management problems and produce imagery and work products that are predictable. You results will be second to none.
The problem you are having most likely is that someone (the manufacturer?) associated a color profile with your display that does NOT actually describe the color response of your display. It happens. And it consistently screws things up when it happens.
A first step you can take to undo that, before going and learning how to make a color profile that more precisely describes your display, is this:
Open WIndows' Color Management panel, in the Devices tab choose [ ] Use my settings for this device,
[Add...] the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 color profile.
If it is not marked as (default), select it and press the [Set as Default Profile] button.
This sets your default profile to a common default set of color characteristics that many displays are designed to implement.
This may make your colors more tolerable, and they'll match that displayed e.g., by Internet Explorer.
Then go off and do some reading. It's well worth taking the time and spending the effort to learn how color-management works. I advise reading about it in multiple places online, always keeping in mind that some (maybe a lot of) people who don't really know much more than you do try to teach it to others. Understand that there aren't really good "just do this" or "set it and forget it" answers, and that just because something is published online or even in a book doesn't make it gospel worthy of blind faith. Read multiple sources, and try to distill out the essence of what they are saying.
Good luck.
-Noel

Color managed workflow for web and camera raw

I recently calibrated my monitor and was wondering what is the preferred workflow for the web? I shoot with my camera in sRGB and my working space in Photoshop is sRGB aswell. The problem that has arised now is that the color managed colors in Photoshop are way different than the non-color managed in my web browser. Is this normal? And what I don't quite get is how a photo that has an embed sRGB profile looks the same in Firefox (that understand embed profiles) and Photoshop, but in Google Chrome (that does not recognize embed color profiles) shows the colors very differently, although the browser should understand the photo is in sRGB by default and show the same colors that are in Photoshop, right? So what happens here, because the colors are not the same? What information does Photoshop assign to the embed color profile that makes the colors so different?
Anyway, I assume the problem here seems to be my newly calibrated monitor profile. The only way I can get the same colors to my photo in Photoshop and to a photo in web is to use soft proofing set to my Monitor RGB AND save without a color profile. Is this the way to go? But here comes another problem. I shoot in RAW and use camera raw to edit my photos. Camera Raw doesn't allow soft proofing, so I'm stuck with these color managed colors that are so different from non-color managed colors I get in my browser that any color correction in Camera Raw is simply useless. Unless everyone was using color managed browsers and I could start to use fully color managed workflow, but that's not the case I suppose. So, what's the solution here?

First off, you need to be working in sRGB, or converting to sRGB when you save out files that are destined for the web. You can change the color space that Camera Raw (ACR) send your raw files to by clicking the blue text in the bottom center of the ACR window. This is probably that safest workflow for you until you get a handle on color management. If the color of your images is very important, you might consider embedding a color profile in them, which will help color managed browsers render your color properly.
If your display's color gamut is different than sRGB (many are), you'll find matching colors for non-color-managed browsers to be impossible. But consider the average display and take heart. The best you can do is correct to a standard and hope for the best.
Both the convert to sRGB and embed color profile options are in the save for web dialogue box.
More about the ACR workflow options here:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS739D7239-24A7-452b-92F9-80481C544F25.html
More about matching colors for the web:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSB3484C68-ECD2-4fa4-B7CC-447A5FE86680.html
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSD3F5E059-4F51-4b44-8566-13B854D3DF5F.html
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS0B3CD652-4675-44be-9E10-445EB83C60BA.html

Color management and ICC V4 support in Firefox 4?

Could you give us an update on how color management has changed in Firefox 4 (if at all) and if V4 ICC profiles are supported again?
There are still very few browsers that really support color management correctly and this it's a pretty big deal for photography buffs and users of wide-gamut monitors.
Tried looking at FF4 FAQs and support and also Googled and Binged but I could not find any info on this related to FF4.
Thanks.

Hello Dennis,
this is the old (known since 2009-04) "qcms doesn't support ICC version 4" bug.
Have a look at:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488800
It's a shame that ICC v4 support has not been implemented yet again.
For all others, who don't know what we are talking about, you can test the Firefox colormanagement behavior here:
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
Regards, Lilien

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!

Color Managed Printing from LR 1.3.1 Inverse of Proper PS CS3 10.0.1 Behavior

Please excuse the length and detail of this post - I'm just trying to be very clear...
Also, it would be helpful if anyone having definitive information about this topic could please email me directly in addition to replying to this forum topic, in order that I might know a response is available sooner (I am new to this forum, and may not check it regularly). My direct email address is [email protected].
Bottom Line: Color managed printing using my own custom-generated profiles from LR 1.3.1 to my Epson 7600 (on Intel-based Mac OS X 10.5.2, but saw the same behavior with 10.5.1) using the current Epson 7600 Intel/10.5x-compatible driver (3.09) is broken, and appears to be doing the exact opposite (inverse) of what I would expect and what PS CS3 does properly.
I am color management experienced, and have been using my custom-generated EPSON 7600 profiles with reliable soft proofing and printing success in PS (both CS2 and now CS3) for some time now. I know how the EPSON printer driver should be set relative to PS/LR print settings to indicate desired function. Images exported from LR to PS and printed from PS using "Photoshop Manages Color" and proper printer driver settings ("No Color Adjustment") print perfectly, so it isn't the Intel-based Mac, the OS, the driver, the profile, or me -- it is LR behaving badly.
The specific behavior is that printing from LR using "Managed by Printer" with the EPSON driver's Color Management setting set properly to "Colorsync" prints a reasonable-looking print, about what you would expect for canned profiles from the manufacturer, and in fact identical to the results obtained printing the same image from PS using "Printer Manages Color". So far so good. Switching to my specific custom profiles in LR and printing with the driver's CM setting set properly to "No Color Adjustment" yields results that are clearly whacked, for both LR settings of "Perceptual" and "Relative CM". Just for completeness and out of curiosity, I tried printing from LR using the same profile (once for "Perceptual" and once more for "Relative CM") with the EPSON driver's CM setting set IMPROPERLY to "Colorsync", and the results were much more in line with what you would expect - I would almost say it was "correct" output. This is why I used the phrase "inverse of proper behavior" in the subject line of this topic. Going one step further, trying this same set of improper settings in PS (PS print settings set to "Photoshop Manages Color" with either Perceptual or Rel CM selected, but using "Colorsync" rather than "No Color Adjustment" in the Color Management pane of the EPSON printer driver) yields whacked results as you would expect that look identical to the whacked results obtained from LR using "proper" settings.
I said above that the improper settings from LR yielded results that I would almost say were correct. "Almost" because the benchmark results rendered by PS using proper settings are slightly different - both "better" and closer to each other - than those rendered by LR using the improper settings. The diffs between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from LR using improper settings showed more marked differences in tone/contrast/saturation than the diffs observed between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from PS using proper settings - the image itself was in-gamut enough that diffs between Perceptual and Rel CM in the proper PS prints were quite subtle. Even though the improper LR prints were slightly inferior to the proper PS prints, the improper LR prints were still within tolerances of what you might expect, and still better (in terms of color matching) than the "Managed by Printer" print from LR. At first guess, I would attribute this (the improper LR prints being inferior to the proper PS prints) to the CMM being used by LR being different from (inferior to) the CMM I have selected for use in PS (that being "Adobe (ACE)"). I can live with the LR CMM being slightly different from that use

(Here's the 2nd half of my post...)
I said above that the improper settings from LR yielded results that I would almost say were correct. "Almost" because the benchmark results rendered by PS using proper settings are slightly different - both "better" and closer to each other - than those rendered by LR using the improper settings. The diffs between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from LR using improper settings showed more marked differences in tone/contrast/saturation than the diffs observed between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from PS using proper settings - the image itself was in-gamut enough that diffs between Perceptual and Rel CM in the proper PS prints were quite subtle. Even though the improper LR prints were slightly inferior to the proper PS prints, the improper LR prints were still within tolerances of what you might expect, and still better (in terms of color matching) than the "Managed by Printer" print from LR. At first guess, I would attribute this (the improper LR prints being inferior to the proper PS prints) to the CMM being used by LR being different from (inferior to) the CMM I have selected for use in PS (that being "Adobe (ACE)"). I can live with the LR CMM being slightly different from that used in PS - that is not the issue here. What is at issue is trying to determine why LR is clearly behaving differently than PS in this well-understood area of functionality, all other variables being the same. (And, incidentally, why am I not seeing other posts raising these same questions?)
My "workaround" is to use "Managed by Printer" for printing rough prints from LR and to do all other printing from PS, especially given the noted diffs in CMM performance between LR and PS and the fact that printing from PS also supports using Photokit Sharpener for high-quality prints. Still it would be nice to understand why this is happening in LR and to be able to print "decent" prints directly from LR when it seemed appropriate.
Any insights or suggestions will be very much appreciated. Please remember to reply to my direct email address ([email protected]) in addition to your public reply to this forum.
Thank you!
/eddie

Color management, PS5 and Epson 3880

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for