Colour inappropriately rendered in Lightroom

     I take a JPEG image in Canon EOS 5D set to sRGB colour space. It is a JPEG, not a RAW image. I download to a Dell PC running Windows XP SP3. When I display the image using Canon's ZoomBrowser EX utility the colour is rendered accurately. When I open the image with MS Picture Manager the colour is again rendered accurately; by this I mean that no colour adjustment would be necessary before "publication" - print, web or whatever. So far, so good.
     However, when I import the image to Lightroom 3, the image is displayed with a muddy brown hue. Not so good! Without editing the image in any way within Lightroom, I export the image again as a JPEG file. When I open this file with MS Picture Manager the colour is again rendered perfectly.
     This all sounds OK except that within Lightroom the colour rendering is so bad that one is tempted to try and adjust the colour balance or whatever, when in fact no adjustment is necessary for this "perfect" image.
     Why is the colour rendition of JPEG sRGB images so bad within Lightroom?
     In the case of my so-called "perfect" image, it doesn't matter as no adjustment wasnecessary, but with a less than perfect image it would be impossible to adjust the colour because the Lightroom rendition is so unrealistic.
     By the way, the image acquires the same muddy brown hue when opened in Photoshop Elements 10, so it seems like a consistent Adobe flaw.
     So is Lightroom (and Photoshop Elements) only suitable for processin RAW images? Or must I set the colour space within the camera to Adobe RGB if I intend to use Adobe products?
     If I select Adobe RGB colour space within the camera, will the images be displayed accurately in non-Adobe applications or printers?
     Strangely, I don't remember this being an issue when I first started using Lightroom. In case you're wondering, all images were displyed on the same monitor.
     Thanks!

Dorset Photographer wrote:
When I Added sRGB and set it as the Default profile, the colour was immediately rendered accurately in LR3 and PSE10.
It fixed the ugly preview but please don't think it's accurate. It will only move towards that goal by calibrating and creating a custom ICC display profile that defines your display system.
If you view an image in Photoshop or Lightroom using that generic sRGB profile, then view the same image in a non ICC aware application as I discussed, they will not match. That is because LR is ICC aware and uses the actual display profile (which in your case is better but not correct in terms of describing your Dell and that is why they provided another almost equally canned profile). Non ICC app's just send the numbers to the display which is quite different from what LR and Photoshop does.

Similar Messages

Very Slow preview rendering for lightroom 5 on import

I am seeing very very slow rendering of preview images only when using the import function in lightroom 5. By slow, I mean for a shoot of 60 shots in raw, it could take 30 minutes before I can preview them all in the pane to see which ones I want to actually import. This was not an issue with lightroom 4. It is not an issue when using lightroom. Previews are fast there, even for images I've never pulled up before.
My hardware is a PC, with an intell i7 chip, and 16 gig of memory. My nvidia graphics card has the latest drivers.
I've seen a few others reporting this issue, so I'm trying to log it as a bug. Even though the dial up support text on the adobe lightroom says available 24/7, it now plays a voice recording that says only available m-f.
Brad

I'm having the same problem using Windows 7 (64b). I just took a shoot over the weekend for a significant birthday event. Now I can't load the photos. The work-around doesn't work as the program freezes before I get the chance to select the camera under "files".
I recently upgraded from 3.6 to 5 as I was also noticing a slowdown in the import function. That turned out to be a bad move I think. I also deliberately cleaned up the CF card and removed all my video recordings, as this seems to be reported as part of the problem, but to no avail.
This seems to be a pretty major bug to have in a major release that's been around for a while now, that I'm expected to pay for, and no sign of a resolution to date!
Cam.

Colour- strange difference between Lightroom and all other programs/windows

Hello everyone,
I have a strange problem with the colours in Lr. In the program everything looks good, the colours are the ones that i want to achieve, but when i export the pictures as jpeg (srgb), the tumbnails of these pictures seem to be fine (same colours as in Lr). However, when i open the jpeg (eg in picture viewer or in photoshop) all of the colours are different than the ones in Lr or the tumbnails. On a different computer, the jpegs have the same problem.
Any idea how to resolve this problem? Can I change the colour management of Lr itself (not the external editors)?
Thanx@

OK.
From LR in Develop module I press cmd e to create a TIFF to edit in PS CS3. Edit with LR adjustments is selected. After a while the TIFF appears beside the CR2 Canon 5d raw file.
Still in LR flick between the two and the difference is readily apparent. I notice that all the tiff presets are at 0 i.e. in the develop module as I would expect them to be. But the TIFF image looks sharper and in areas of detail less saturated. I think the decrease in saturation is more a side effect of sharpening.
The new TIFF opened in PS looks exactly the same as the TIFF in LR. But both are different from the raw file they were created from as seen from the LR develop module.
In LR I have applied some masking and a moderate amount of sharpening to the CR2 raw file. I do note that applying sharpening in LR does not seem to change anything except the 1:1 and higher mags unless the sharpening is extreme. In other words I think the imnage as displayed at lower magnifications e.g. Fit to screen is not a realistic representation of the overall effect of sharpening, even when rendered on a large monitor (30") wide gamut monitor. If I am right this is a significant problem. I note that BibblePro perviews reflect the effect of sharpening on the overall image more accurately. (So it is possible.)
(FWIW: My preview settings in LR are quality high, 2048 pixels.)
EDIT: Yes I am correct, the images look the same at 1:1 but not at lower magnification. So guess the LR preview rendering machine does not quite match the preview rendered from the newly created TIFF.
Still knowing this does not help, it just means what I see on the screen in LR at lower magnification than 1:1 is not accurate.

Fuji FInePIx F31fd colour reproduction problems in Lightroom.

Hi, I have a Canon 400D and Fuji FInePix F31fd. When I import the Fuji pictures into Lightroom (1.1 and 1.3) some of the pictures have pink artefacts on the faces of the subjects. When viewed on the camera, using Canon software of Fuji software, or even Nero or Windows, none of the artefacts are present. In fact, all of the Fuji images look soft and the colour reproductions are poor when viewed with Lightroom or Photoshop.
Has anyone else experienced this? Does anybody have any suggestions for resolving this?
Many thanks.

Not necessarily. The other applications likely don't use the OS's default monitor profile.
As for the 400D shots, it's possible that the tone curves tend more to avoid the troublesome areas of the profile.
If you don't profile your monitor, delete the default from the OS and see if things change. You can always put it back.

10 bit colour display path for lightroom 3??

I have been following an interesting forum topic on the PS forum here about 10 bit monitor support in PS CS5.
For some background:
10 bits/pixel is becoming more prevalent with high-end displays these days (it provides 1.07 billion color possibilities instead of the 16.7 million colors available with the regular 8 bit display path). Getting a fully working 10 bit path from the app to the display appears to be more of a challenge though, but a challenge which appears to have been overcome now in PS CS5. I'm wondering if moves are afoot for Lightroom to also support the 10 bit color path??
This is my take for what you need for PS CS5 to display 10 bit colour in windows (sorry, I'm not a Mac person so couldn't comment):
Suitable graphics adaptor - Some ATI FirePro models and nVidia Quadro models support 10 bit color (cheapest is nVidia Quadro FX 580) - the availability/use of the displayport interface is most often the tell tale pointer as to whether the adaptor supports this. Only more recent driver packs provide 10bit API support for apps to utilise, so latest drivers are often required.
Displayport connection between graphics adaptor and monitor (DVI only supports 8 bit color)
A monitor which supports 10bit color - (High end NEC models (PA241W/PA271W models and new Spectraview Reference models in UK) now support this as does the HP DreamColor plus some Eizo and Lacie models to mention a few)
Enable 10bit color support in the Graphics adaptor control panel - this option generally only appears when all of the above is in place, and when enabled, provides the display path via OpenGL, for apps to utilise if they are coded for such (this option is known as 'Enable 10-bit pixel format support' for ATI, and 'Deep color for 3D applications' for nVidia)
Enable OpenGL hardware support (under Preferences, Performance, 'Enable OpenGL Drawing' in PS CS5)
So will this be supported in Lightroom 3 before long? Or perhaps it is already??
Anyone know this?
Thanks, Paul
p.s. I realise the above chain of requirements sounds complex, but I got it working this week for a new PC build and it was actually quite straightforward.

martin-s wrote:
What would be the advantage of this?
If you google around for how many colours the human eye is able to distinguish, you'll find scientific research quoting numbers around 10.000.000.
Horribly false.
The prevalent sRGB color space is covered fairly well by the 8 bits per pixel depth most commonly used ("32 bit" or "True Color" color in Windows), and that is about 16.7 million colors. While bit depth and color space are different things, once you go to the wider gamuts in other color spaces such as Adobe RGB without using more bits you will start to see banding in similarly colored (blue skies is a good example) areas because there are not enough digital steps to make smooth transitions as the color gradually changes. Take my word for it (I've seen it in many of my own pictures.) or do more reading for more details if it's not clear, but the key points follow.
First go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XvYCC
and read about the xvYCC color space. In their reference number 2 down toward the bottom of the web page you find a link to:
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/hopa/2007_xvYCC_forHPA_FINAL.pdf
which is a pdf of a presentation discussing extended gamut color spaces. Check out slide 3 which is at the bottom left of page 1 to see examples of many things in the real world that are quite visible to humans but outside of sRGB.
Next check out slide 19 at the bottom left of the 5th page to see just how pathetic sRGB is at covering human vision. The small pictures on the right in this slide show the coverage of the various color spaces of the "Munsell Color Cascade". The gray areas indicate colors that each space cannot cover, and you can see sRGB has huge blotches of gray.
Munsell did some of the very early definitive lab testing of human color perception. You can start reading about him and his color system here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system
and continue reading other links found on that page for more info about the extensive lab testing of human color perception.
Looking back at slide 4 on page 1 of the presentation linked above you will find an odd looking colored region that is curved around the top. It looks like this:
That colored region is the estimated range of standard human vision. There is a version of that which has the sRGB color space shown on it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cie_Chart_with_sRGB_gamut_by_spigget.png
And that large view also gives you a much better idea of just how pathetically inadequate the sRGB color space is at covering human vision. Again, bit depth is not color space, but 8 bits per pixel is pretty much maxed out trying to represent the sRGB color space without having to fake colors within it's triangle.
There are probably cases where banding can be seen even in purely sRGB images with only 8 bits per pixel. And every color that you see in that large region with the curve at the top (in the picture shown in the last link above) that lies outside the sRGB triangle will have to be "clipped", which is converted into some color that does lie within the space. That means you never see any actual colors that fall outside the triangle even if 8 bits per pixel could have covered them somehow using some other color space. They're simply lost.
If you do try to use 8 bits for wider gamut color spaces you end up with the banding I mention above because there are too many shades of color to be represented by 256 steps for each of red, green, and blue. Thus the need for 10 bits or more per pixel.
I hope this helps to dispel any more myths about the limitations of human vision falling within what 8 bits per pixel or sRGB can provide.

Why does Merge to Panorama not allow rendering in Lightroom?

If I choose to Edit in Photoshop on one or more images, I get prompted that Camera Raw 7 may be needed for Photoshop to render the images correctly - which I understand as the versions of Camera Raw are different - and then get three options to choose from: Open Anyway, Render in Lightroom and Cancel.
However, if I choose Merge to Panorama the only options are Open Anyway and Cancel - I assume this is the same for Merge to HDR although I haven't tried it. So why can't Lightroom offer the same Render in Lightroom option when merging to panoramas? It's possible to work around it as I am currently doing, but it's a bit convoluted: Edit in Photoshop, Render in Lightroom, manually initiate Photomerge, save the resultant TIFF in the correct place, sync the folder to import it, then delete the original TIFFs Lightroom created that I didn't really want in the first place.
I'm assuming this is an oversight that will be corrected in the final version - would be nice to get that confirmed though!

I would guess that Render-in-Lightroom choice doesn’t apply when the number of input files (the RAWs in LR4) doesn’t match the number of output files from Photoshop (a single panorama or HDR file).
In the normal Edit In Photoshop situation the file you are rendering in LR on the way to Photoshop is what Photoshop is going to save to, so LR doesn’t need to delete any temporary files. When you make a panorama or HDR there are intermediate files that would need to be cleaned up, and instead of being an oversight, maybe it is just LR trying to be simple about things. Simple means that LR is not going to create and delete intermediate files for you along with not asking you how the temporary files should be named or where they should be created. The lack of camera-raw would be a rare and usually transient condition so would be a low priority in the overall scheme of things to implement a solution for.

Colours not rendering correctly in terminal

Hi,
I have just installed Arch on my laptop, and I am getting everything setup. When I run alsamixer something goes wrong, the screenshot below speaks a thousand words.
When I use the arrow keys to change widget focus the previous widget tends to disappear all together. When I exit alsamixer the terminal is useless, typically no text is shown. The terminal does accept input however.
The problem is reproducable in both XFCE4 Terminal and xterm. My .bashrc looks like
alias ls='ls --color=auto --group-directories-first'
alias grep='grep --color'
alias ll='ls -lh'
export PAGER='/bin/less'
export EDITOR='/usr/bin/vim'
export PATH=~/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:$PATH
export PS1='\[\e[32m\]\h \[\e[0m\]\$ '
export MPD_HOST=127.0.0.1 MPD_PORT=6600
complete -cf sudo man which
Another thing to note is that the problem affects all open terminals, not just the one alsamixer was run on. Also, once in a rare while 'grep --color' can produce the same effect.
Phil

Hello,
In the USBC CSS , delete this:
TD {
font-family : Arial, sans-serif;
float: right;
Take care,
Tim
"bhanson" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:gp3ups$l6j$[email protected]..
>I recently switched from Dreamweaver 8 to CS4. I also
recently updated my
> Firefox to 3.06. I have had this website for years, and
it just started
> not
> rendering tables correctly in Firefox. This is happening
on multiple pages
> It
> works fine in IE.
http://www.wiw.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy/
>
> Let me say up front, I know the page is antiquated
(created in Front Page)
> It
> uses tables for the layout instead of CSS. I hope to be
updating it soon,
> but
> for now I need a fix to get the pages to work correctly.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
> Becky
>
>

Dark prints, loss of colour ...(Lightroom)Nikon D80

Please help, this prob is driving me nuts. every time i send off my photos to be printed (@photobox) what looks a perfect image comes back really dark and with a loss of colour/contrast. i know a bit about monitor alteration and have set the brightness of the screen to .0. still it looks brighter than what comes back. ive tweaked the contrast of the monitor and if i print at home the pics all come out with a pink hint but brightness at home is fine....please someone what am i doing wrong !!!

Also before I forget it is absolutely necessary to calibrate your monitor with a hardware tool to get good color. On a Mac you can get away with
software calibration if you're not too critical but also there hardware calibration is essential.

Canon G9 Video rendering in Lightroom 4

I've got some videos taken with a Canon G9 that are not being rendered with the correct colors. They play in the same colors as the thumbnails below.
Is this a problem specific to this camera?
Regards John

Yep, you got it. Applied a preset to the import of 2000+ photos and a few videos. The preset must have caused the issue.
Thanks John

Lightroom 3.6 is giving me odd colours.

Hi,
I'm shooting RAW files on a Canon 550D
I am also using Canon DPP software as well
I have a custom screen profile created with a ColorVision Spyder2
I'm using a Canon pixmania MG6250 with genuine Canon Inks and Paper
I'm Using the PRINTER'S profile to manage output (not perfect but not bad either)
In Lightroom 3.6 I am getting very odd color problems. Not all colors seem to be affected but most particularly lips in portraits are hugely over saturated with a positive red shift. Reds in general are too saturate but this doesn't extend to a red colour cast. In lightroom I have assigned the correct camera profile (e.g. almost always camera faithful).
When I look at the same file (both LR and DPP unaltered) the colours are what I expect them to be in DPP but not in LR.
When I print the files from LR and DPP I get exactly the same results as with the screen colours for both programs. I have checked for updates but without success.
Any suggestions?

LR Adobe Standard should give you very similar color rendering as DPP Camera Faithful. Based on your description I would try adjusting LR's White Balance and make sure Vibrance and Saturation are set to '0,' and then compare the difference between DPP and LR.
If still different check to make sure your Spyder 2 software is set to create ICC v2 profiles and NOT v4 profiles. You might also try creating a new display calibration profile. LR is very picky about any inconsistency in the display profile. When every other application looks fine except LR, the display profile is the first thing I would investigate.

RAW rendering in Picasa and Lightroom

Hi I have some questions regarding camera RAW rendering in Lightroom.
When I opened my RAW image with Picasa, Picasa initially shows the embedded JPG preview and then it shows the RAW color of my image (which the color is true to reality). However when I imported my RAW file to lightroom, my lightroom shows me the embedded JPG preview (magneta) even in the develop module. Can anyone tell me does this happen? I tried to open my RAW file in Photoshop elements and DXO Optic Pro 9 too and both of them render my RAW file as how Lightroom renders (magneta)
On the left - how Picasa renders my RAW file (the color is true to reality) ; on the right - how Lightroom renders my RAW file (magneta)

When I opened my RAW image with Picasa, Picasa initially shows the embedded JPG preview and then it shows the RAW color of my image (which the color is true to reality).
I disagree with that statement, Picasa does not provide "color is true to reality". It provides one of an infinite number of appearances, as decided by the manufacturer of the software. You may like it better, but it is not "true to reality".
Both RAW editors make decisions about how to display a RAW, and both RAW editors use a certain algorithm to make those decisions. The algorithms will not match, and will not produce the same results. One is not superior to the other. If the appearance of the RAW in Lightroom is not pleasing to you, then you have a huge number of tools to modify the appearance to get it to something you like. In particular, Lightroom offers camera profiles for many cameras that can automatically modify the appearance of a RAW photo to much closer match what the camera maker wants.

LIghtRoom color problem vs PhotoShop CS2 on Nikon RAW

I recently bought Adobe Lightroom and I was surprised to notice some huge color differences compared to PhotoShop CS2.
Im using Nikon D80 and shooting RAW. I have calibrated semi-pro monitor.
The same RAW file opens in LightRoom pretty well until you get the rendering preview. Once the preview is done, the picture becomes desaturated in red and blue and has a green cast especially in the shadows with much lower contrast. If I use Edit in PhotoShop option, the picture becomes even worse (even more desaturated and greenish) when opens in PhotoShop. If I open the same RAW in PhotoShop directly (using the NEF plug-in, not CameraRaw!) everything is just fine. The picture looks as opened in Nikon Picture Project or as I saw it when I took the picture.
After doing some research, I think that my problem relates to the way that Adobe Camera RAW, Bridge and LightRoom open a Nikon sRGB 4.0.0.3001 (D80) raw file. However, all the things being equal, PhotoShop CS2 (using the NEF plug-in) renders the same colors as Picture Project does (and what I saw on my camera and in reality). I also noticed that choosing sRGB in Camera Raw bring the things closer to the Picture Project colors but far from identical. Anyways, there is no way to change anything in LightRoom, outer than manually twicking all colors until I think it looks good. Which, I think Is very subjective and is different for every picture.
Right now, my Creative Suite Color Settings is North America General Purpose 2 (synchronized for all CS applications) and no application asks me anything about changing the color profile when opening the file. I shoot (with D80) in raw, Normal camera mode (no saturation / contrast, color profile change). I opened the same file in all mentionned applications (LightRoom, CameraRaw from Bridge, PhotoShop and Picture Project) and save them as .jpeg (same size, dpi, etc.) without changing anything (no camera calibration in ACR or LR; no printer profile in PhotoShop). I sent the .jpegs to my local Costco and printed them on glossy paper. All of them printed the same way that they look on the screen. LR, ACR - desaturated on red&blue, color cast on green and low contrast, while great vivid colors and contrast from PhotoShop and Picture Project. For me it looks pretty much as Adobe applications convert Nikon sRGB into a very unappealing Adobe sRGB (and way different from what I saw in reality). I know this is very subjective; some people may argue that Nikon profile is too reddish and oversaturated. But I find the whole story rather unusual. They all work in the sRGB space and there shouldn't be any differences. I've done lot of testing with color profiles and replacing the Camera Raw plugin file format (common files) with Nicon plugins and vice-versa. But still the same result.
I create a User Profile in LightRoom and I get pretty decent colors now, but when I want to edit the file in PhotoShop (from LightRoom) I get the same green and desaturated version.
What do you think?

>Regarding LR, what I'm looking here is a "factory made" solution; something that can give consistent results in the initial conversion (like Nikon plugin for PhotoShop, for e.g.)
The problem with that conversion is that you cannot change it. In lightroom you change the actual conversion parameters, which gives you far more leeway and allows for far better conversions in the end. Currently (this will change with Lightroom 2.0 apparently) the only recourse you have if you prefer Nikon's colors is to shoot jpeg, or run your NEFs through capture and create 16-bit tiffs. This is just the way it is. A hammer gives a different result than a screwdriver.
>It's hard for me to believe that Adobe has invested so much energy and resources in color profiling but it's unable to get nearly close to the Nikon raw colors.
Nikon's colors are far from colorimetrically correct which you can see in many tests. Here is an example for the D300: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D300/D300IMATEST.HTM It is off in the deep reds, the saturated blues, and the Olive-like colors. Profiling the camera does not help you get close to Nikon's colors, but it will get you closer to the ideal colors. I doubt it has been Adobe's goal to get close to the in-camera rendering with Lightroom upto 1.4. They profile all the cameras and make some value judgments on what is more important. Skin tones vs saturated colors etc just like Nikon does.
Regarding getting close to camera colors, there is a trick that you can do to get close to the camera jpeg that involves the ACR calibration scripts. You do need PS CS3 though.
>I find rather strange that apparently there is no way to get professional conversion. This is defying the main purpose of Color Profiling, I think.
Why is Nikon's conversion professional and Adobe's not? They are both just interpretations of the sensor data. Adobe's is actually colorimetrically more correct in many cases. Colorimetrically correct often means boring unfortunately. This has to do with the fact that our eyes are not color measurement devices but that we have brains interpreting the data. To get pleasing results, Color Profiling does not help as much as you'd like. My issue with the in-camera or Nikon software approach is that it locks you down creatively to the
creative choices the Nikon folks made. Now, be aware that in the Lightroom 2.0 forum the Adobe folks have hinted at major changes to the rendering engine that will bring colors closer to the vendor rendering. How they will do this is unknown right now.

A dumb question about kelvin and white balance in Lightroom

I keep reading a high kelvin number is cooler and a low number is warmer, but in light room, in the develope module, the lower number ( 3500 ) is blue, and a higher number, (7000) is very yellow. What am I missing?

Lee is essentially correct with his analysis but incorrect with the details. The Kelvin colour temperature scale is between Yellow and Blue, not Red and Blue as stated.
There's a lot of confusion about this, with many digital photographers missing the significance of the difference between cyan and blue, magenta and red etc.
To be fair, the printing industry has added to the confusion by traditionally calling printing inks Blue, Red and Yellow when they really are cyan, magenta and yellow.
Even Adobe can get it wrong. In the initial Lightroom beta release, the temperature scale had the colours Cyan at one end and Yellow at the other. I suggested it be changed to Blue to make it correct and less confusing which thankfully was implemented in the next update.
Despite decades of working with colour both in the darkroom and with Photoshop, I too struggle with the counter-intuitive approach of the colour temperature reading in Lightroom.
Essentially, if you shoot in light that is too blue, then you need to add Yellow. So the Kelvin number displayed in Lightroom isn't the 'Mired' correction or the amount of Yellow added, but a readout of the scene's original colour temperature before the Yellow correction.
This can be really useful. I use several different branded flash units with various reflectors and attachments. I recently ran a test, shooting a Macbeth colour checker with all the different combinations.
I then used the White Balance Selector (dropper) on the neutral 5 patch and wrote down the resulting colour temperature.
From that I could work out what filter corrections I needed to use on each flash and reflector to produce consistent daylight balance.
Most flashes seem to be around 6000ºK but I had variation between 5200ºK & 6400ºK with the combinations.

Colours do not Print correctly with Photoshop CS4

I am using the Adobe Master Collection CS4, and use an Epson RX650 printer, but for the life of me I cannot get Photoshop to print what is on the screen.
The prints are dark, and no where near the ones on the screen.
I am using genuine Epson Ink, and Premium glossy paper, so as to remove this issue, is this a case of my screen needing to be calibrated?
I have considered buying the Spyde Studio calibrator to ensure that this is correct, (do I need to?) and I have read as much as I can about setting up Adobe to manage the print settings and colours, but still no luck.
My current settings are as follows
In Adobe Bridge, my creative suit color settings are set to Europe General Purpose 2
The in Adobe Photoshop (version 11.0.1) I am selecting under colour management, Document Adoby RGB (1998), Photoshop handles colours, Printer profile is Epson sRGB Colour Space, Rendering intent is Relative Colourimetric, and I have ticked the following boxs, Blackpoint compensation, Match print colours, Gamut warning and Show paper white.
Can some one please advise me?

I too have had problems with prints being much darker than what I see on screen.
Below is my solution which works fairly well for color prints--not as well for grayscale.
I used the huey Pro monitor calibrator purchased only a couple of months back to make my prints look right and be consistent.
1.       Use the huey to calibrate the monitor
2.       From Photoshop (CS4), I select the ICC profile for my Epson 2200 printer and the paper being used. I then set up soft proofing in Photoshop (in the View menu) which allows me to see on screen how the image will be printed. Usually it is a bit darker than I like.
3.       so I adjust the brightness such that in the soft proof view, the image appears as I wish.
4.       There is more yet to do in that you have to set various settings for the print process like letting Photoshop manage colors, setting no color adjustment for the printer. And a few more minor settings regarding the printer
By the way, there is something wrong with the print driver for the 2200 in XP so that when you come to the last screen before printing, the print preview has a very red tint. You simply ignore that since the print has none of that. This is in XP. Possibly Windows Vista has a driver that doesn’t do that.
This has given me good quality consistent prints the first time they are printed—at least on the few I have done since getting the huey

Colormanagment between Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 5, Adobe RGB

Hello,
In Photoshop CS5 are the Colours, Brightness diffrent to Lightroom 5 as you can see in this picture:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33568224/Bildschirmfoto%202014-10-21%20um%2023.45.16.p ng
My settings in the colormanagment in PS is Adobe RGB and Europa pre-press 3. But even when i switch to other options the picture isn't changing. I guess there is the Problem, it seems that it don't react on my adjustments:
here are my settings
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33568224/Bildschirmfoto%202014-10-21%20um%2023.54.40.p ng
and here the same picture with complitly wild settings ;-) (the preview is activated)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33568224/Bildschirmfoto%202014-10-21%20um%2023.55.17.p ng
can anybody help me out with that?
Thank you very much
Stefan

And to directly answer your question, you don’t inform Adobe, you merely deactivate PS, reimage, then reinstall and reactivate PS with the serial number(s), and relicense LR with the serial number(s).
If this computer isn’t yours and you don’t have the serial numbers, yourself, then that could be a problem, although there may be software that can find the serial numbers. On a PC platform, download and run the Belarc Security Advisor and see if it finds the serial numbers you need. It’ll only find the current product serial numbers, not the prior versions that an upgrade might be based on, so then you’ll be stuck.

Colour inappropriately rendered in Lightroom

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for