Color management under Arch

Hey all,
At my job we do photo and slide scanning. Photo scanning isn't such a big deal but slide scanning definitely is. I am kind of fed up with Windows and I would like to migrate to Arch since I love it for my laptop and it has been exceedingly stable so far.
Color management is a constant issue (slides are a new market and we need to work more on the color management), and I was wondering what the best bets are to get started on that. In the Wiki it mentions that LCDs need to be handled in a special way. The video card is too old for the Catalyst driver so I can't use the amdcccle tool to adjust color (which I did on my laptop using some color charts and other test images online and I have been pleased with the results). I am halfway familiar with xgamma but I guess I'm looking for advice as well, since a rough test with xgamma didn't yield the best results (I have a quick installation set up to test it out on another partition for now). Also what about some of the hardware color calibration tools out there? Do any of those work in Linux?
These might be slightly noobish questions but I really appreciate the help.

Similar Messages

Important Hints on Color Management under Windows XP!!

After struggling for several hours, I have learned a couple important tidbits I have not seen elsewhere in these forums. As much confusion as I read in here about color management and color issues, this might be quite important to some.
If you want to skip the story, jump down to the last few lines of this entry for the summary.
I recently built a new computer, and when I copied my catalog over to the new drive and opened it, all my files as viewed in Lightroom had a distinctly "yellow" tinge, as compared to their exported JPEG brethren (as viewed in Windows Explorer thumbnail view). I realized, aha, I haven't set up color management on the new system yet, so this is to be expected. Lightroom internally uses a different color space than XP, so without some color management they won't match.
Well, after going around and around setting up monitor profiles and so forth, I was getting nowhere. Nothing was changing the appearance of the yellowish images in Lightroom!
Abandoning the effort for the time being, I switched to other tasks, and imported an old catalog to see if I wanted any of the old work before I deleted it. Then i did a double take... my color problem was fixed! Could color profile info be stored with catalogs? Surely not.
So I started experimenting. Removed all monitor profiles. No change. Switched back to the newer catalog. The colors changed. Put the monitor profile back. No change. Restart Lightroom. No change. Click load catalog, and then pick the same catalog I'm on. No change. Load the old catalog, the colors changed. After several rounds of experimentation, I am now sure of the veracity of this new discovery.
Here is the moral of this story, in two bullets:
(1) Some color management changes in Windows XP are only apparent in Lightroom when you load a catalog. Even restarting Lightroom, or restarting Windows isn't enough. Only loading a catalog makes the changes show up.
(2) You can't simply reload the catalog you are on. You have to load a different catalog, so Lightroom offers to Relaunch, in order to get the changes.
I hope this helps someone.
Vaughn
http://vaughnsphotoart.com

>I recently built a new computer, and when I copied my catalog over to the new drive and opened it, all my files as viewed in Lightroom had a distinctly "yellow" tinge, as compared to their exported JPEG brethren (as viewed in Windows Explorer thumbnail view). I realized, aha, I haven't set up color management on the new system yet, so this is to be expected. Lightroom internally uses a different color space than XP, so without some color management they won't match.
Since Windows Explorer is not managed, they will NEVER match, even if you use sRGB in your exported jpegs as you should. This is even true if you calibrate your monitor. You can only get a complete match when your monitor's primaries correspond precisely to sRGB, which basically never happens. In unmanaged apps, calibration only impacts the contrast (i.e. gamma and blackpoint) of the monitor. This is why the use of managed apps is so important.
>So I started experimenting. Removed all monitor profiles. No change. Switched back to the newer catalog. The colors changed. Put the monitor profile back. No change. Restart Lightroom. No change. Click load catalog, and then pick the same catalog I'm on. No change. Load the old catalog, the colors changed. After several rounds of experimentation, I am now sure of the veracity of this new discovery.
This is weird. Lightroom for me always picks up on a new monitor profile after a restart. I don't need to load a different catalog. Definitely not normal and unexpected behavior.
>How could a monitor profile do this? Monitor profiles effect the image as it's sent to the monitor, so how could LR even "know" what monitor profile is selected? This still isn't making sense to me.
Actually it does have to know. The way color management is implemented on windows (and Mac OS too), is that apps are responsible for doing the translation to the monitor profile. The OS just tells the app about the monitor profile and the app can deal with it as it pleases. This way the app can either use a system library such as ColorSync or the windows equivalent, or its own profile conversion code such as all Adobe Apps do. This is why unmanaged apps are not suddenly magically corrected. The only thing that gets corrected for unmanaged apps is the grey response because this is handled by a LUT (lookup table) in the videocard.

No Color Management will activate ColorSync?

Dear all,
I'm trying to print out the profiling target via Photoshop CS4. As usual, I made sure my target is Untagged; under print preview I choose "No Color Management"; Under Epson Printer Driver, I choose "No Color Adjustment" with the correct settings for that specific paper. After I print out the target and waited for 48 hrs, then I start to scan my sheets and creat a profile with it. But when I compare the custom made profile to the generic profile, it is almost half of the size smaller. I've tried with different types of paper, profiling software (ProfileMaker, i1Match, MonacoProfiler, Pulse) and printers including 2880, 4880 and 9880. They all came out the same way. I've been told that the ColorSync is activated by Photoshop even I've already selected "No Color Management" under Print Preview and ColorSync will automatically assign the default paper profile for that printer. Please can someone tells me is there any solution for this issue?
My settings:
Intel based MacPro
OSX 10.5.8 with the latest Update
ColorSync (The latest version)
Photoshop CS4 with the latest Update
Epson Printer (2880, 4880, 9880) with the latest driver
Thanks
Aaron

My testing would seem to suggest that the problem arises just after CS4 sends the target to the driver. What I have found, and it was also stated on other forums, was that if I assign a profile of "generic RGB" and set the colorsync default space to "generic RGB" I get a target sent to the Epson driver that goes thru a NULL profile conversion and thus unchanged. Turning color management off in the driver then prints the target with output looking like I expected. All of this seems to me to suggest that colorsync (Apple) is the issue. This would also seem to be the thoughts of others on this forum.
So... My question to Adobe, who should have far more pull with Apple than I, is what is being done to resolve this issue and that when something is sent to the driver with "NO COLOR MANAGEMENT" it truly means ZERO color management in the workflow? I understand that this issue will never be experienced by casual users of the product but it is affecting most of the professional / higher end users.
John
If you had really bothered to read all the forum threads here and elsewhere, you would be aware that old drivers or bad installs of drivers is the problem here that causes the double profiling with Apple new printing path.
My question to you is what do you expect Adobe or Apple to do about this when most all current SL drivers for current printers work correctly? Whose fault is it if the printer manufactures choose not to support new OSs for there old legacy printers?
You have a lots of choices or workarounds to print correct color.
Use old or other OSs, drivers, that support your old printer.
Use workarounds that some of us have come up with.
Print with applications that use the old print path.
Purchase new printers with drivers that support the new OS.
Complain to Epson if that is your printer of choice.

*Please* Apple, fix Safari color-management

Hey,
I was very happy with the SL update and following 10.6.2 regarding color management under OS X.
The problem is that Safari's own color management is broken. It reverts any untagged content to Monitor RGB. This is a huge problem on wide gamut monitors as they'll render over saturated colors (almost neon-like).
Apple should follow Mozilla's steps and see what they did with Firefox 3.6. It manages all colored content (whether it's images or CSS colors) and reverts everything to the ICC monitor profile you set on your preferences.
I cannot rely on Safari (or Chrome for that matter) anymore.
I know this issue is well-known and was reported before, but Apple has to fix this.
-F

HI,
Best to put a bug in Apple's ear...
From the Safari Menu Bar click Safari/Report Bugs to Apple.
They will not respond but developers do read the reports.
Carolyn

Can't access Color Management options for HP 6700 under Mac OS 10.8.5 (Mountain Lion)

Hello.
I've got the HP Officejet 6700 Premium e-All-in-One and I can't find any way to access Color Management options.
The printer is attached (Wi-Fi) to my iMac running Mac OS 10.8.5 (Mountain Lion).
I want to correct a magenta cast to photographs that I've printed. I've had the magenta-cast problem under Lightroom and using Preview to print the photographs, so now I want to work with color profiles in Photoshop Elements.
Photoshop Elements recommends that I "disable color management in the printer preferences dialog".
However, I'm not able to find color management preferences for the 6700 in any of the settings under Mountain Lion:
Not under (Apple) > System Preferences > Print & Scan.
Not under (HP Utility) > Open Embedded Web Server.
Not under (HP Utility) > Printer Settings.
Not under Preview's print dialog.
Nor can I find any clear direction in the online help (at HP or elsewhere) that I've read so far.
Any suggestions would be most appreciated.
Thank you!
Michael
This question was solved.
View Solution.

Please note that in the Print dialog I get "Color Matching" not "Color Management."
Still, I am (at this point) able to control color from Photoshop Elements, so that's good enough to proceed.
Thanks again.

Printer Profiles under Color Management

We are running a copy of CS5 where the printer profiles are not showing up. We are using illustrator to send jobs to a Universal Laser system. The laser system uses the working RGB color space, but that option is not showing up under Color Management of the Print Dialog box in Illustrator. The only options we have available are the Dot Gain and b/w settings.
The Laser behaves like a normal usb printer. it came with a driver, but the driver does not include any ICC profiles since it would simply use the sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
How do i get the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 option to show up in the color management of the print dialog box in illustrator CS5?

Thank you for the reply. But this does not explain how to fix my issue.
The pull down menu under color management of the print dialog box should have a long list of availble printer profiles. Instead i'm only getting assorted Dot Gain settings, Gray Gamma, B & W and sGray ( refer to image in original post). There should be a sRGB or working RGB option associate with the selected device along with a list of other profiles.
This is preventing illustrator from sending the correct color information to my laser cutter. The cutter is dependent upon the color information in the art file. Instead, illustrator is sending b & w color data becuase of the profile selected under color management.

HOW DO YOU SET DOCUMENT PROFILE UNDER COLOR MANAGEMENT IN CS4?

When I try to print in CS4
(File>Print>Color Management
>Document(it displays sRGB IEC61966
-2.1)
I need to change this to Adobe RGB1998 and I cannot find out how to do this!
If I go to >EDIT>COLOR SETTINGS the Working Space shows Adobe RGB 1998. Is this what the above "Document" setting should be?
Please help!
Dan

I told you how to set a document profile.
You set your working preference. That may have combined with the policies you have set and the processes you follow to get your document into the Adobe RGB color space.
In any case, I'm glad you have things the way you like them.
-Noel

Printing with HP B9180 and Photoshop Elements 8 and Color Management

I've got a bit of confusion about certain settings in the printing process and I've posted a rather long discussion of my 'issues' and confusion. I hope someone can give me some guidance here. I've seen a lot of these issues addressed in many places but I can't seem to find an integrated response. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to read and respond.
Color Management Questions
My problems started when I was getting pictures that were too dark from my HP 9180 printer after having gotten very nice prints for a long time. I had obviously started to do something differently inadvertently. The only thing I think that is different is that I got a new 23 inch monitor, which does produce much brighter on-screen images. So, I started to do some research and know just enough about color management to be slightly confused and have some questions that I hope someone can give me some help with.
Equipment Background
I use both a Canon 20D and a Canon PowerShot SD600 camera. Both have the default color space as sRGB, although the 20D can be also set as RGB.
I also use Photoshop Elements 8, where there are a variety of settings possible for printing.
My monitor is an HP S2331, whose color space is sRGB and cannot be reset to RGB (I think) except for temperature; the default is 6500K.
My printer is an HP Photosmart Pro B9180 Printer, where there are also a variety of settings possible.
I’m running XP-Pro.
Here’s Where I Get Confused
Everything I have read about color management (various web sites, forums, books, etc) says to have the image, monitor, and printer all in the same color space.
Everything I read about PSE 8 (same sources) says to set PSE 8 to ‘Always Optimize for Printing’ under Edit>Color Settings in order to get the best prints. This displays photos based on the Adobe RGB color space.
I am taking pictures in sRGB, and telling PSE 8 to process them in RGB by selecting ‘Always Optimize for Printing’. Is this something I should be concerned about? Should I reset my camera for RGB?
Further, by selecting ‘Always Optimize for Printing’, I am setting PSE 8 for RGB while my monitor displays sRGB. Is this an important issue or is it also much ado about technicalities that an amateur should not worry about? It does violate the ‘keep them in the same color space’ rule.
Next, when I go to File>Print and get the Print window and then do the Page Setup and Select Printer, I then go to More Options in the lower left of the window. Under the More Options window, I select Color management and select Photoshop Elements Manages Colors. Next, there is Image Space, which is fixed and not subject to selection from a drop down menu.
I understand that this is the image space of the image I took with my camera and that information is embedded in the image. Correct?
Next, there is Printer Profile. But, from what I have read, this is where the IEC profile of the paper being printed on is supposed to be selected, isn’t it?
Shouldn’t this more appropriately be called Paper Profile, or Printing Media Profile? Further, this drop down menu appears to be somewhat erratic, sometimes showing all of the paper profiles I believe are loaded, sometimes not. It also shows listings such as Working RGB-Adobe RGB (1988), Adobe RGB 1988, Dot Gain 10%, 15%.... along with a lot of paper profiles. Aren’t those profiles unnecessary here?
I’ve used both Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual Rendering and am happy with either one.
Next, when I go to Printer Preferences, in order to “…disable color management in the printer preferences dialog”, under the Color Tab, I select Application Managed Colors from the Color management drop down menu, and also have the option of selecting ColorSmart/sRGB and Adobe RGB (1988).
Is there any time when I should use either ColorSmart/sRGB or Adobe RGB (1988)? If I were staying with my camera’s sRGB setting, given the fact that the monitor is sRGB, would the appropriate selections be ‘Printer Manages Colors’ and ‘ColorSmart/sRGB’?
Finally, under the Features Tab, I go to look for the same paper I selected under Printer Profile (Question 4 above). If it is one of the pre-loaded (by HP) profiles, it is there, but if it is a profile I downloaded, say for an Ilford paper, it isn’t listed, and I need to guess at an equivalent type of paper to select.
Is there any way to get that listing to appear under the Paper Type drop down menu?
I know that this is a long post, but it helped me to clarify my ‘issues’. Thank you for any and all suggestions, answers, guidance and help.

RIK,
Some printers have long names, esp. HP printers, and PSE gets ":confused." In control panel>devices and printers, right click on the default printer, go to printer properties, and rename the default printer to something short, e.g. "Our Printer." That may fix it..

How do I get color management options in PSE9?

I have been trying to print pictures on an HP printer and when I do they come out fairly red and pink. When I go under more options under printing and select color management the only option that I have to adjust is print space. I have a PSE9 book which shows that I should have color highlighting, image space, rendering intent as options but they do not appear. I have tried many different solutions but nothing has helped, same results. My file formats are in RAW but I also tried JPEG which ended with the same result. I was thinking of reinstalling the software but wasn't sure if I would lose all of my files.
Thanks,

TXGB Packer a écrit:
Sorry, I meant color handling. However this is the screen that I was talking about. The only option that mine shows is image space. I want to know how to get the rest of this information to show up. I believe once I get this fixed I should be able to make prints with the correct color balance.
Do you mean 'color editing or correction' rather than 'color management' ? Correcting the color balance may be done in either of the quick, guided or full mode. If so, which mode do you use ?

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!

Need help with color management

I am looking for someone to help me. Please!
I am looking for help with Photoshop/printer not printing correct colors.
I have: Windows 7, Photoshop CS5, Photoshop Elements, HP Pavillion Laptop, new Okidata C530dn color laser printer
Previously I had a Canon Pixma MP620 and a gentleman from another forum gave me the correct settings for printing on photo paper and colors were perfect. I now have a OKIdata C530dn color laser and have started a business printing business cards and greeting cards, etc., and I do advertisements on a freelance basis.
I will be working a lot with cardstock or cover stock 65-110 lbs paper. I have an old OKIdata 2024e at work, and the colors are much better with that printer than my new personal one. I have tried matching the settings of that printer to mine to no avail. I have finally gotten the color close, but not quite. When I print on my Canon injet the colors match and print perfectly.
I have tried every setting variation that I can think of to get the color correct with my new OKIdata. I have to get the colors correct or my new business will go under because I can't match colors for my customers. I am a self taught Photoshoper and a novice so please bear with me.
Using Okidata PCL. Also have PS
Color settings in Photoshop:
North America General Purpose 2
sRGB 2.1
U.S. Web Coated Swop v2
Dot gain 20 %
Dot gain 20 %
Preserve embeded profile
Preserve embeded profile
Preserve embeded profile
engine: Adobe (ACE)
Relative Colormetric
Tried RGB color mode and CMYK color mode, no difference
Printer settings:
Photoshop manages colors
sRGB 2.1 Printer profile
Relative Colormetric
Print setup:
Letter
Multipurpose tray
Weight: printer settings-default (when I used heavy setting for cardstock it printed green instead of the color light blue, so that was a start to the right color)
Job Options:
Hight Quality
Color: No color matching
Printer preferences in Printer properties:
Color management
Device: Display 1 generic PnP monitor AMD M88og with ATI Mobility Radeon HD4200
ICC Profiles: Generic PnP Monitor (default)
Advanced:
Windows Color System Defaults:
everything under this tab is set at System Default
I have gotten the color close, but colors are dull. I have tried an adjustment layer and setting the saturation higher, but that doesn't help. I know my laptop is showing the right colors, (calibrated) because I am still printing to the Canon with cardstock and the colors are perfect using the same settings above.
Tried printing in PSE and it gave me an error that it was not a post script printer. Installed ps driver, still getting errors and it wouldn't print.
I would appreciate any help you could give me before I run out of toner and have to buy the expensive toners, or just slit my wrists j/k LOL
Thanks! JS

You need an ICC profile for your printer. Chromix has an excellent service at http://www2.chromix.com/colorvalet/ which will do this calibration for you. You download some software they provide, then print a test file on the exact same paper you are using for your cards. Then send the output to them and they will calibrate the colors with their equipment and send you the ICC profile file. Once you have it, you'll be able to print accurate colors.
There are other services out there that may cost less, but I do not know how reputable they are. Chromix is a good business I've worked with many times.
If you are trying to run a business and you don't understand color management yet, you may be in for a lot of trouble. Please get the book "Real World Color Management" available at http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/ and it will save you a ton of money and headaches.

Progress on Unity under Arch Linux!

See here for information about the new GNOME 3.12-compatible packages: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 3#p1404683
I'm now on IRC! Come join us at #unityforarch on Freenode
To install Unity from my repos:
See the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/un … mmended.29
To install Unity from source:
See the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/unity#From_source
-- You probably don't want to read anything below --
The story
So...rather than wasting internet bandwith to download a new Ubuntu ISO to test out the new Unity features, I decided to try to make it work under Arch Linux. It took a whole lot longer than I expected to get it even partially working. So, here's my story:
Knowing that Unity isn't in the main repositories, I went the AUR's website and looked for a user created Unity package. That didn't go too well. The Unity package hasn't been updated for 6 months. D'oh! I decided to download the existing PKGBUILD and modify it to work with the Unity 4.xx series. After changing the version number, I tried to "makepkg" it, and was greeted with a message about installing Compiz 0.9.x. I thought it would be an easy install. It was quite the opposite. Compiz's install prefix was set to /opt/unity, but FindCompiz cmake build file expected Compiz to be in /usr, so none of the Compiz packages, except for compiz-core would compile. Then, I tried reinstalling compiz-core, but this time, changing the prefix to /usr. The compiled package ended up being only a few kilobytes big. I guess the mouse wheel was invented for a reason. I looked at the PKGBUILD again, only to find that there was a line at the very bottom that ran "rm -rf ${pkgdir}/usr". That explains a lot! I ended up adopting all the compiz*-git packages and fixing them so they would compile and install.
So, now that Compiz is working (restarted and tested just to make sure I didn't waste my time with something that didn't work), I went on to install the rest of the dependencies listed in the Unity PKGBUILD file. That went relatively well. I was so happy after seeing the progress counter go up after running "makepkg", but at about 8%, gcc spat out an error about an undeclared function (sorry, I forgot what the function was). Natually, I went to Google and searched the name of the function. 0 results! Exactly was I was looking for! I ended up downloading the Ubuntu 11.10 Alpha 3 ISO and running "find -type f /usr/lib | xargs objdump -T | grep the_function". The problem lied in the libindicator package. There was a newer version available which contained that function. I have no idea why a package that's only 0.02 versions ahead of the AUR package would contain new functions...
Next! Utouch...ugh...great memories! Not! I was so glad that I had fixed the utouch packages earlier (for touchegg to work). I was too frustrated from compiz and libindicator to try to compile more stuff.
Cmake. Whoever created the CMakeLists.txt file didn't list all the dependencies required. So after running "makepkg" 10 billion times, waiting for "somebodydidntputthisincmake.h not found" errors to appear, I finally got all the dependencies I needed installed...or so I thought. After installing and compiling all these dependencies, the cmake only continues 3% further before encountering another cryptic gcc error. This time, there no error about a file not being found. So not knowing what dependency was missing, I headed over to http://packages.ubuntu.com and downloaded the Unity DEB source to find the dependencies in then debian/control file. After install those few dependencies that I missed, I ran "makepkg" again, hoping that it would finally compile successfully. CMake went a little further--5% further to be exact--before running into another error. It complained about DndSourceDragBegin() having two return types. Sure, enough "./plugins/unityshell/src/ResultViewGrid.h" had the return type as boolean and "/usr/include/Nux-1.0/Nux/InputArea.h" had the return type as void. WTF? How the heck does this even compile under 11.10???
After changing void to bool in "/usr/include/Nux-1.0/Nux/InputArea.h", I ran "makepkg" once again anxiously waiting to the see the line "Finished making: unity 4.10.2". CMake compiled about 35% before running into error about an undeclared gtk function. Nooooooooooooo!!! I wasn't brave enough to install the git version of gtk3, so I created a chroot, installed the base packages, and installed all of those dependencies fairly quickly (it gets a lot easier after doing it so many times).
Moving on to gtk3. After cloning the ~200MB git repository, autotools spits out an error about cairo-gl missing. So, I proceeded to install the cairo-gl-git package, which failed to compile (it compiled successfully outside of the chroot...). GREAT. So, Unity fails to compile because GTK version is too old, and GTK failed to compile because cairo-gl is missing, and cairo-gl fails to compile because I'm in a chroot. GAHHH!!! While thinking about throwing the computer out of the window, I searched the AUR for other GTK3 packages. I just happened to find a package named "GTK3-UBUNTU"! That package was still at version 3.0, but it was pretty easy to get the patches and source code for 3.1 from the Ubuntu GTK source package.
So, FINALLY, Unity compiles. I was so darn happy, I didn't even care if it ran or not. I logged out and logged back into the GNOME 3 fallback mode, and entered the chroot. After running "xhost +SI:localuser:chenxiaolong" to run X11 apps in the chroot, I crossed my fingers and ran "DISPLAY=:0.0 unity --replace". It failed with python 3 complaining about missing modules. That's okay, since the Unity launch script is written in python 2. I changed the shebang line in "/usr/bin/unity" to point to python 2 and ran "DISPLAY=:0.0 unity --replace". It didn't necessarily fail, but it didn't succeed either. It didn't print out any error messages. Weird... I thought I'd try enabling Unity from the compiz settings manager then. I ran "DISPLAY=:0.0 compiz --replace" and "DISPLAY=:0.0 ccsm" and enabled the Unity plugin. Unity runs! Although nothing shows on the screen, it runs! It shows up in the process list! Woohoo!
And that's about how far I got. There were quite a few Vala errors during the compiling process (I forgot which package it was), which is probably why Unity won't appear. I'll try again later with the vala-devel or vala-git package and hopefully Unity will work then. Here are screenshots of what I've gotten working so far:
http://i.imgur.com/7F1fm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/zGNJc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3mCgd.jpg
By then way, I love the simplicity of pacman and the AUR. I can't imagine how long this would have taken with other package managers.
Moderator edit: Do not place large images in line. If you want, you may embed links to thumbnails inside url tags.
Last edited by chenxiaolong (2014-04-15 17:11:04)

City-busz: I'm getting a ton of Vala errors when I compile libunity (AUR version) with vala or vala-devel. libunity fails to compile with vala-git. I'll try your packages in a virtual machine and see how they work on 64 bit.
In the meantime, Unity still fails to show up: http://i.imgur.com/btPwo.png I'll try out your PKGBUILDS and see how that works. I'm glad there are people who want to port Unity to Arch Linux
EDIT: City-busz: Just to let you know, Unity will fail to compile at around 45% with GTK 3.0. Here's my source packaage for Ubuntu's GTK 3.1: http://ubuntuone.com/p/1EzX/ It contains all of the patches in the Ubuntu source package. I'm not sure if all the patches are needed, but GTK compiles fine with all of them.
EDIT2: Right now, I'm trying to compile Vala 0.10.4, then version used in Ubuntu 11.10. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the Vala errors.
EDIT3: Vala 0.10 is too old. 0.12 and 0.14 are also in the Ubuntu repository. Trying those...
EDIT4: 0.14 is actually 0.13.1. Gah... Vala takes longer to compile under VirtualBox than GTK3...
EDIT5: Okay...so VirtualBox "helpfully" became slow enough that I could read the error messages. The Vala error messages aren't actually error messages, but rather warnings about unused methods. I wonder what prevents Unity from running then...
Last edited by chenxiaolong (2011-08-30 02:30:29)

Exporting h.264 and color managment

I'm wondering what everyone that owns the production suite does with color management.
If you open Adobe Bridge....what are you color management settings? The reason I'm asking is that I've got two 2408WFP monitors and I'm using CS3. Everything looks great in Premiere CS3, but when export to h.264 I get horrible contrast results. It really looks over exposed. I've checked my Adobe Media Encoder settings and I'm exporting at 100% with 20,000kbps and it still looks like garbage.
When I play the same footage on a iMac....it looks under exposed to the point I can barely see it.
If this is a monitor calibration issue, how do you recommend I calibrate? What do you use and what are your settings? Also, does anyone else here use a 2408WFP monitor?
Much thanks!

It has to do with default Gamma settings. Mac are 1.8,(until Snow Leopard, which is now 2.2) PC is 2.2
PC's look a little brighter, more washed out compared to MAC. You should get a monitor calibration image from the net, and adjust your monitor.
Here is a link that might help...
http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/osx_22_gamma.html

Photoshop CS3 color management "Save for Web" problem

This problem is getting the best of me.......
After spending 3 full days researching this problem, I am no closer to finding an answer than when I started. I still cannot produce a usable image through the "Save for Web" feature of Photoshop CS3. I have read web page after web page of "Tips, Tricks and Recommendations" from dozens of experts, some from this forum, and still I have no solution... I am exhausted and frustrated to say the least. Here's the simple facts that I know at this point.
I have a web design project that was started in PS CS1. All artwork was created in photoshop and exported to JPG format by using "Save for Web". Every image displays correctly in these browsers (Safari, Camino, FireFox and even Internet Explorer on a PC).
I have recently upgraded to PS CS3 and now cannot get any newly JPG'd image to display correctly. My original settings in CS1 were of no concern to me at the time, because it always just worked, and so I do not know what they were. I have opened a few of my previous images in CS3 and found that sRGB-2.1 displays them more or less accurately. I am using sRGB 2.1 working space. Upon openning these previous image files, I get the "Missing Profile" message and of course I select "Leave as is. Do Not color manage". CS3 assumes sRGB-2.1 working space, opens the file, and all is well.
The problem is when I go to "Save for Web", the saturation goes up, and the colors change. The opposite of what most people are reporting. Here's another important point... new artwork created in CS3 does exactly the same thing, so it's not because of the older CS1 files.
I have tried every combination of "uncompensated color", "Convert to sRGB", "ICC Profile", etc. while saving. I have Converted to sRGB before saving, and my monitor is calibrated correctly.
I have tried setting the "Save for Web" page on 2-up and the "original" on the left is already color shifted before I even hit the "Save" button. Of course, the "Optimized" image on the right looks perfect because I am cheating by selecting the "Use Document Color Profile" item. Why do they even have this feature if doesn't work, or misleads you?
Does anyone have any ideas what could be happening here? Why is this all so screwed up?
CS1 worked fine out of the box.
Final note: I do have an image file I could send along that demonstrates how it is possible to display an image exactly the same in all 4 of the browsers I mentioned with no color differences. It is untagged RGB and somehow it just works.
I am very frustrated with all of this and any suggestions will be appreciated
Thanks,
Pete

>> First of all... I'm using an Adobe RGB image master... I open it and get the Profile Mismatch Screen... I choose Use Enbedded profile... all looks well. Next I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... again all looks well, no change that I can tell.
This has further confused the issue on several points, not the least of which version PS you are doing this with?
>> AdobeRGB> Convert to Profile > Working Space sRGB-2.1... all still looks well... but now, when I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... I see the insane oversaturated look that is driving me nuts.
That is your strongest clue...it sounds like you have a bad system or bad monitor profile. To rule out the monitor profile: Set sRGB as your monitor profile in System Prefs> Displays> Color.
>> Adobe RGB image master... I open it and get the Profile Mismatch Screen... I choose Use Enbedded profile... all looks well. Next I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... again all looks well
That doesn't make sense, stripping an embedded AdobeRGB profile should desaturate the color in Softproof MonitorRGB, especially the reds -- you have something wacky going on there.
At this point I think you need to review the links and get a grip about how color management and profiles work...
BTW, forget about setting ColorSync in PS COlor Settings, use Adobe ACE.
MO,
I think SFW is fixed under CS3 :) By default it Converts to sRGB and strips the profile.

Photoshop CS5 Color Management

My question has a complicated back story, but here is where I'm at. I'm still a newby when it comes to color management. I'm running Photoshop CS5, Lightroom 3.3, Windows 7 64-bit, Dell Studio XPS desktop, and a new Dell U2311H monitor. I really struggled several months ago trying to learn color management and Photoshop printing work flow, and may have made an error during that process that created my situation. When I attach a new monitor (or different monitor), all of my images in Bridge, Photoshop, and Lightroom display with a strong pink/magenta cast. Images displayed by applications that are not color managed look normal. Once I calibrate the new/different monitor (with Spyder2Express), and reboot, the color managed images display normally. If I go to the Control Panel, and assign another profile (such as sRGB IEC61966-2.1) as the default profile for the monitor, all images continue to display normally. If I go to the Control Panel, and disassociate ALL profiles from the monitor, the images displayed by Bridge, Photoshop and Lightroom again display with a strong pink/magenta cast.
If no profile has been assigned to the monitor on which Photoshop is going to display an image, what does Photoshop do that might result in a pink/magenta image? Might I have a corrupted profile somewhere, or might I have miscoded something in Color Management that is causing the condition? If I need to provide some additiional info, please let me know what info is needed.
Thanks for any assistance..

Andrew, thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I believe I found
and corrected my problem last night. When I attempted to do my own printing
from Photoshop last summer, I experimented a lot as I tried to figure out
the work flow. I discovered last night that I had apparently introduced an
error into the Monitor Color settings under Color Settings. The RBG Work
Space under Monitor Color was set to "Monitor RBG - xxxxx", where xxxxx was
the profile for the Epson paper I was experimenting with last summer! I
suspect that Protoshop was using that profile when I didn't provide any
other profile for the display. I changed that setting to "Monitor RBG -
sRBG", and my problem (the strong magenta casts when displaying images
without profiling the monitor) is gone.
I have been using the Spyder2Express for the past couple of years, and
usually work with a monitor I have previously calibrated with the Spyder.
This magenta problem only showed up when I switched to a new monitor, and
displayed images before running the first calibration. I wanted to resolve
the magenta problem, however, to determine whether it might be connected to
two other problems I have involving color management. The first was my
attempt last summer to print on a "hand me down" Epson 2200 printer. I
finally got the work flow figured out, but was never able to eliminate a
slight magenta cast from some of my prints. I tried printing from three
computers, using two operating systems, downloaded the 2200 driver and paper
profiles numerous times, printed on two different Epson papers, printed test
prints of the same image on two other printers (without the slight magenta
cast). I've given up on the 2200 for now!
My latest concern, which really prompted my renewed interest in color
management, is my latest monitor calibration. I just purchased a Dell
U2311H, and calibrated it with the Spyder2Express. At the end of the
calibration/profiling process, the Spyder provides a before/after view.
With other monitors, I've always felt that the calibration/profiling process
improved the test image. With the Dell U2311H, however, it appears to my
eyes that the "before" image looks super, while the "after" image appears to
have a yellowish, or yellowish-green, cast, and the after image is also
"lighter", giving the image a bit of a "washed out" look.
Any suggestions on what I might try next?
Thanks again for your help, Andrew. By the way, I read the two articles you
sent links for. I especially enjoyed the article on matching display and
prints. I'll keep rereading that one until it all soaks in!
Mike
www.mikelandwehr.smugmug.com

Color management under Arch

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for