Colour profiles and my sanity!

I hope there's someone here who can help this Photoshop newbie!
I am a keen but very amateur photographer, and I'm experiencing a frustrating problem in Photoshop and though I've read a few articles on Colour Profiles, I must be missing something obvious.
I've set my Photoshop (CS6) colour settings (edit/color settings) to ProPhotoRGB. I import my images from my camera and edit them so they look exactly the way I want. The problem is, after I save the final images and view them in other image viewing software, such as FastStone InfanView, ACDsee etc. the colours look a little washed out. I must be missing something obviously but I just don't know what. I know for web uploading, it's usual practice to set your color profile to sRGB, and that seems to work fine for the web, but my images are being saved primarily for viewing offline and for possible printing.
Can someone explain to me in layman's terms what it is I'm doing wrong here?
Thanks.
Simon.

Good day!
Could you please post screenshots to illustrate the issue?
And set the Status Bar in Photoshop to display the profile.
Do you "Embed Color Profile" when you save the images?
Regards,
Pfaffenbichler

Similar Messages

Colour colour profiles and JPEG compression mismatch

In preparing images for iBooks I have noticed bizarre behaviours and a number of problems with matching colours.
For example, if a JPEG image all one colour is placed in a gallery widget over a text box, and then the background colour of the textbox is set to the colour of the image by sampling the colour in the image using the colour picker, when downloaded to the iPad the colours will not match (although they appear to in iBooks Author). I presume this must be a bug with the encoding of the JPEG? Or is it a conversion issue between different colour profiles used for the solid colours in iBooks and the sRGB colours that Apple advises using for images?
I have also noticed that if you download a book to an iPad the colour matching between solids and image colours changes radically depending on what monitor you have the computer running iBooks Author plugged into (ie depending on the monitor profile in use). What colour profile does iBooks author use for solids and what for images and why are they different? Is it conversing the solids but not the images, or vice versa, and between which colour spaces? What is the working colour space of iBooks Author? Does it differ depending on the monitor profile? If so, why does converting images to the monitor profile still not result in them matching the solids used in iBooks Author?
In short, does anyone have a clue what is going on with the colour profiles and colour matching in iBooks Author and iBooks on the iPad? They certainly display the most perplexing behaviour I have ever come across.
Giles Hudson

Although you say there is no concept of a colour profile in iOS, the problem is that iBooks Author does recognize profiles, and appears to take them into consideration when downloading images to books on the iPad. For example, an image tagged with an sRGB profile placed in iBooks Author will appear differently from an identical image tagged with an Adobe RGB profile. The problem is, it is not at all clear what conversion is going on, especially when using a monitor with a different colour profile appears to cause radically different behaviour in the conversion. Is it being converted to "Device RGB" that the colour picker apepars to use? What is this Device RGB? The monitor RGB or the iPad RGB?
I understand that iOS supports RGB and CMYK. However, the important question is, which working space does iBooks Author use? sRGB, GenericRGB, Device RGB (whatever that is), Apple RGB, Adobe RGB, the monitor RGB? Without knowing this it is difficult to match solid colours to colours in images (and even arguably impossible due to the JPEG encoding problem I mentioned above).
All this vagueness in colour handling with OSX and iOS makes life very difficult, especially, as you suggest, when things have the potential to change at any minute, potentially wrecking months of painstaking work that has been put into designing books in iBooks Author.

Help with colour profiles and wide gamut monitor

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

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

PNG colour profiles - and this format for print

I know it's taboo to talk about PNG for printing.
But I can't find and I've searched the forums - there was a post made about embedding colour profiles a while ago.
I know PNG is a RGB only format, but I'm 36.8% sure I read something about embedding either RGB or ... wait for it CMYK profiles into PNG files.
If anyone can shed any light on this - and how about PNG for print - I've been against it for a long time - but it is a lossless format, it can carry 64 bit data.
I know I know - but I thought I'd ask anyway - see what people think.

You can't save a PNG with a profile out of Photoshop, but it looks like you can embed one via the image events scripts that ship with OSX (/Library/Scripts/ColorSync/embed). Unfortunately ID ignores the embedded profile and uses the document's assigned profile instead. PNGs do respond to ID's RGB profile and the RGB profile will have an effect on the CMYK separation when it happens.
Here's ProPhoto and sRGB:
From your ID document you can also assign a profile, which conflicts with the doc's profile, by selecting the png and choosing Image Color Settings.... So, you could assign AdobeRGB as your doc's profile and assign sRGB to all your pngs.

Photoshop colour profiles and Aperture

The local lab only has Photoshop colour profiles, nothing for Aperture. Any way to utilize these in Aperture?
They recommend their PS RGB profile. If I can't utilize it, I can get an image that is closer to my screen display, if I onscreen proofed using Aperture's generic RGB or sRGB modes. My last print job did not utilize any onscreen proofing beforehand and it shows -- way too blue in the print. Onscreen proofing using either of these RGB modes gets me closer in colour balance to the last print job, but contrast and brightness is still an issue (print is darker and flatter).
Any way to work with these profiles to produce my own custom one, based on a series of test prints?

A colour profile is a colour profile. Photoshop is just an app that uses them - there's no such thing as a PS-specific colour profile.
Copy the profile into either ~/Library/ColorSync/Profiles (specific to that user) or /Library/ColorSync/Profiles (all users) and it should appear in the lists for screen proofing and output profiles in Aperture.
Ian

CCP colour profiles and different lenses

Hi,
I just got a Nikon D7000 and I've been playing around with my ColourChecker Passport to set up some standard colour profiles for use in ACR as a general starting point for processing. I've been pondering if it's worth my while to create different profiles for each lens I have, something I've not previously done when profiling my old D60, where I just created a series of profiles (including some dual-illuminants) by using one lens and capturing the target under a variety of different lighting conditions (e.g. tungsten, flash, sunshine, etc).
Anyway, I just tried creating a profile for my 105mm 2.8 lens under tungsten lighting, having previously (yesterday) created one under the same lighting with my 50mm 1.4 lens and I've been comparing them in ACR using the colour dropper. I’ve opened up the images used to create the profiles, applied the profile generated using the ColourChecker software for the corresponding lens, and then set the white balance using the ‘off-white’ colour patch with the eye dropper WB tool. I then used the colour dropper on the same colour patches in each image. I’ve noticed that the RGB colour values aren’t matching quite as well as I’d expected (note that I thought it potentially unrealistic to get a perfect match): blues and greens seem to be roughly the same, so for example with patch #3 (third from left on the top row), one is at 69,72,115 and one at 70,77,115, but reds and oranges seem to be a bit further out of sync, e.g. with patch #15, one is at 99,45,29 and one at 109,51,34; with patch #16 one is at 166,167,29 and one at 175,179,33. This surprises me a little, as I thought the idea of CC was to calibrate the profiles so that colours were essentially the same across different lenses – and different cameras if applicable. I have to say though that, colour values aside, when eyeballing the two images on my monitor (profiled) they do look very similar, which I guess is the main thing!
I wonder if perhaps I’m missing something here? I’m quite prepared to be told that I’ve got this all wrong!
Also, I wonder if others on the forum using CCP have gone to the trouble of creating lens-specific profiles, or if they’ve just created profiles for their camera body using one lens? This is the approach I took with my D60, but having done more reading on CCP I know that some folk do advise to create separate profiles for each lens they use (and I am of course aware that the CCP user manual also states to do this). Do you even create a profile for each and every shoot (when possible)?
I’d be very interested to hear your opinions on this as I’ve not been using CCP for all that long and am always eager to learn more.
M

First of all, a color profile is for correcting color, not luminance, so compare the HSL or Lab coordinates not the RGB values so you can just ignore the L coordinate. From your given RGB numbers, you can already tell that one of the images is brighter than the other so it is just confusing looking at the RGB values and guessing what you would expect the three values to be in the other image. For comparing two images, I would concentrate on the Hue number in HSL coordinates, since Saturation can change with contrast, and Luminance can change with Exposure and Contrast.
Also, as part of your eyedroppering comparison, another thing to do would be adjust the "Exposure" of the darker image until the L number (in HSL or Lab) is the same as the L in the brighter image and then see what the other two numbers are--maybe the other two numbers won't change, and then you can try putting one of the HSL values in the "Old" patch of the color-picker and the other in the "New" patch and see how much different they look. You'll have to do this comparison in Photoshop not ACR so use ProPhotoRGB when you export to keep the colors as close to the same as you can.
The two questions you seem to have, are: does using a lens-specific profile make enough difference to real world situations to bother with, and where are the variations I'm seeing when the profiles are applied to their source images coming from since I would think they would be the same.
For testing whether the profiles computed for the two lenses make a noticeable difference even with your two profiles that don't appear to correct the same, apply the two profiles to the SAME CC image (one of the two you created your profiles with), save an sRGB JPG of each, and see if you can tell the difference, either side-by-side, or even better, when you flip back and forth in some sort of photo viewer--like with Windows Picture Viewer when those are the only two images in the folder. By apply the two profiles to the same image you have mitigated any luminance and white-balance differences in the source image and are merely looking for differences in the effect of the two profiles.
If you can't tell much difference between the same image using each of the two profiles then it's just an academic exercise. I like academic exercises, but am also a perfectionist and lazy so I would do the experimenting until I found out I'd perfected things enough that I can't tell any difference then I can stop. In other words, do I need to profile for various lenses or not, or am I just doing it because I like to control everything as much as possible and it really doesn't make any difference.
Before answering the other question, about where any profile variations might be coming from, understand that the combination of white-balance and color-profile is attempting to convert the colors of an object photographed in the lighting scenario the profile was created for into the colors of the object photographed in a standard lighting scenario. In my mind the works out to be "make the colors of the object look like it was photographed in sunlight". The issue that requires making a profile and not just white-balancing, is that any part of the object that was colored the same as the light color will be neutral when the white-balance is done, and more generally the closer the color of the object is to the color of the light, the more neutral it will become when WB is done. For example, if you have a red ball and a gray ball and photograph them in red light, they will both look gray when white-balanced. A real-world example of this would be flesh-tones in incandescent light, when white-balanced will have even less color and be more neutral or pale or even bluish, than the skin photographed in sunlight, so after white-balancing, the job of an incandescent profile is to boost the reddish colors and diminish the bluish colors so the skin looks like it would in sunlight. This might be an argument for NOT WBing skin in incandescent lighting. In severely-colored lighting, especially nearly monochromatic lighting such as sodium vapor lighting, correcting the colors to be as if in sunlight will be impossible, but to the extent the lighting isn't monochromatic, the colors can be made to look more normal, if not perfectly normal..
To understand whether the differences you're seeing in the profiles are due to the lenses being different color or due to variations in the profiling process, itself, think about where the variations could come from and how you might test for each:
Was the source lighting exactly the same color between the two shots with different lenses (that were taken a day apart)? Test by eyedroppering the WB of same neutral-color patch in each photo and see if there is any difference in the Temp/Tint numbers. You cannot test the source-lighting color unless you have shot with the SAME lens for both days, so if you don't have shots with the same lens, seeing that the WB is not much different between the two shots can give you some comfort that the difference in the profile was not a difference in the source lighting. The source lighting might have changed if there was some daylight mixing in on one day and not the next, or if the A/C was running on one day and not the other and the voltage was slightly different and the redness of the light was different. One other thing that can wreak havoc in repeatability of both color and exposure is if any of the lighting is fluorescent CFL or tubes, because that sort of gas lighting changes intensity as the voltage varies and reverses 60-times per second and this variation is especially noticeable if the shutter is fast. So while your lighting may have been incandescent any changing daylight or flickering fluorescent lighting mixed in might have changed the source-lighting color enough to make a variation in the profile more than the color of the lenses might have.
This first question dealt with the photos taken with each of the two lenses. The remaining questions are about testing with just one lens.
Is the profiling process repeatable? Test by creating two different profiles from the SAME CC photo and be a little sloppy about when marking the corner patches, and see if you get different numbers applying those two profiles. An idea where things might not be repeatable, is that there are slightly variations in the color of the color patches (you should be able to move the eyedropper across the color patch and see if the RGB numbers change) due to slight color noise and depending on where you put the "corner" markers on the CC image, you'll get slightly different results.
Does the exposure make any difference? You can determine this by taking a photograph using the SAME lens in the SAME lighting (a few seconds apart), and just varying the exposure by 1/2 or 2/3 of a stop, and then computing a profile for each exposure and apply those two profiles to one of the exposures and see if the non-L coordinates of HSL or Lab eyedroppered.
If you check all these variations you'll have an idea of how much each affects the profile and then can judge if the magnitude of the differences you're seeing are related to variations with creating the profile, or actually related to differences in the lenses and thus a new profile for each lens might be warranted, assuming you can tell the difference, still. I mean even if you can tell the difference between the profiles created with different lenses, are the differences from the lens significantly more than the differences due to exposure or lighting color or corner-patch placement?
I haven't tried computing a profile for each lens; however, I have created a dual-illuminant profile (2700K and 6500K) and then computed new color-matrix slider values (the ones under where you set the profile) for various lighting conditions using Tindemans' script and despite the slider values being not close to zero, I can hardly tell any difference on the few images I've looked at. Once exception to not having the color-matrix sliders make much difference is when using the dual-illuminant profile with fluorescent lighting, which has a significant Tint value compared to either of the standard illuminants, but in the case of fluorescent lighting, I'd rather compute a whole new profile, than use a slider-corrected dual-illuminant profile.
Besides eyedroppering Lab or HSL coordinates in Photoshop, another way to check for color variations is to create a color-error plot in the Color Check module of Imatest and see how far the squares and circles are off from each other for each color-patch. An example of such a color-error plot is linked below, where it shows how far off the colors of a color-checker are in incandescent lighting after computing a color-profile in incandescent lighting. You'd expect them to be completely correct, but they aren't, and is a lesson in color profiles only being to go part way in making the colors look as if they were photographed in sunlight:
http://www.pbase.com/ssprengel/image/101322979
If you click on the above image, you will return to the thumbnails for color-error the gallery, and in the gallery description you can see links to both Imatest and Tindemans' script if you care to pursue things more in depth. Imatest is not free but does have a free 30-day trial, which should be enough time to get some useful information out of it.

RGB CMYK PDF EXPORT.(colour conversion) Keeping your colours vibrant and your blacks black.

Ive been tearing my hair out for the best part of 14 hours trying to figure out how to keep the closest possible conversion for working with images(rgb in photoshop) right the way through a work flow until exporting to print (having used the image in Indesign). Here is the process I have been trying to get right.
1) working with RGB photo images in photoshop and converting them to CMYK (whilst holding on to as much colour as poss)
2) Importing them to Indesign and retaining the correct colours while working with them)
3) Exporting to high quality print and having all your colours stay 100% the same as you saw them within indesign.
I believe I have the solution so I posted my settings below to see if its the best way of doing things and to help others who might be having the same problems.
The problem
The problem is that there are many different colour models/profiles (both in RGB and CMYK) and each program can effect how the next one handles and stores colour. It can become frustrating knowing where to go in order to set the settings correctly as the combination of things to consider can make it confusing.
I understand many other people have similar problems and finding RGB blacks come out as grey. CMYK spaces get converted from one type to another either from one program to the next or even as things move around one program (causing all sorts of wonderful,colour errors) Plus you have imported colour profiles, working colour profiles and export profiles. All of which can interact and effect each other) So getting it all consistent is key other wise colours change and get washed out.   Especially vibrant colours like greens and blues. they fade etc.
Through sheer trial and error and perciverance I found a combination of settings that worked well for me.
Since I am not an expert I wanted to post up my settings to:
1) see if this is the best way of doing things.
2) Other people may find them useful if they had the same problems I had,
The Solution
In photoshop
Save the photoshop image in CMYK by selecting:
Edit > Convert to prfile.
(in destination space)
select: Euroscale Coated v2   (I think this holds the colours the truest of all CMYK colour formats.)
(in conversion options)
- Engine: Adobe ACE
- Intent: Perceptual.
- Check Use black point Compensation.
(leave all else unchecked)
Save the image ready to place in indesign (place rather than copy and paste.).
In Indesign
edit > colour settings   (make sure you click on the advanced tick box to open more options)
- Working space: =
- RGB: sRGB IEC....
- CMYK Euroscale coated v2
- RGB & CMYK convert to working space.
- Engine Adobe ACE
- Perceptual
- Use black point compensation
edit > Assign profiles
- RGB profile. > Assign current workspace: sRGB IE
- CMYK > Assign current work space Euroscale Coated V2
- Solid colour intent : preceptual
- Default image intent
- After blending intent: Perceptual.
edit > convert to profile. (use similar as above).
edit > Preferences > Apprearance of black
- on screen / export : Display all blacks as enriched black
- Priniting and export : Display all blacks as enriched black
Overprint: (not checked)
------ when exporting to PDF ----------
File > Export
in GENERAL TAB
- Adobe PDF preset: High quality print.
- Standard (drop down menu): PDF/X-42008
- Compatability: Acrobat 5 PDF1:4
in OUTPUT
- COlour conversion: Convert to destination
- Destination: Working CMYK Euroscale Coated v2
in PDF/X
- Output intent profile name: Working CMYK - Euroscale Coated v2
also:
If you are having problems with fill blacks not coming out as proper black then use registration instead of black from the swatch panel.
The above may seem either obvious to most of you or possibly not the best way of doing things but since the results worked for me and I found them tough to arrive at, it may be of use to others hence my post.
I would like your feedback on this process, have I done something wrong / could do better? If so please let me know. I am keen to improve.

I would copy and paste into InDesign forum. Text should stay 100% black. Any other black (like solid boxes or thick lines), I usually use a rich black swatch I created at 40/40/40/100. Looks 10 times better than just 100% black.

Help! How do I create a document with an imported PDF in 300dpi using a FOGRA27 colour profile?

I am a new Indesign user and I have been working with GIMP for the last year creating single colour print-ready PDFs. But now I need to create a document with a FOGRA27 CMYK colour profile and a resolution of at least
How do I create a document with an imported PDF in 300dpi using a FOGRA27 colour profile?
I can import the PDF by creating a new document and finding the PDF in places, but it's bad quality.
The only colour profile I can find under View - Proof Setup is FOGRA39, but I need FOGRA27!
Help help help, I need to get these files printed in two days!
Thanks so much..
xx

Proof Colors doesn't change the file's color management, it just lets you see what the color values would look like if they are printed unchanged on different output devices. If you want to actually convert the color from one CMYK space to another, it's probably better to do that in Acrobat—Tools>Print Production>Convert Colors.
There's very little difference between Fogra27 and Fogra39—Fogra27 allows more total ink 350 vs. 330.
There's nothing you can do to improve the quality of low res images

Colour profiles problem - images saving too dull. Please help.

I realise you have probably had this question a million times before and I have looked at enough related threads, but I am still at a loss as to what to do. Please note I'm not the most computer-savvy.
For the record I am using Photoshop 7 (yes it's old, but it suits my needs just fine!) and Windows Vista Home Premium.
What I do is take photographs of my artworks, edit them in Photoshop until they look accurate, then post them online. Images have always looked identical in every program, and I had never had any problems, until I got connected to the Internet on Tuesday. This computer has not been connected to the net for a good few years, and so lots of updates got installed. I'm not sure which ones exactly, as my boyfriend took care of that, but I'm convinced this has caused the problems I am having now:
First I found that an image I had edited and saved as .jpg for web use was showing up overly saturated and contrasty in the Windows Photo Gallery preview. I assumed I had saved it wrongly. I re-opened the jpg in Photoshop to check - it looked exactly as I had saved it. I figured something had messed up with Photo Gallery during updates, so I uploaded the jpg to the Internet. The image that uploaded was the overly-saturated, contrasty one.
After realising that suddenly ALL the images I had uploaded online, and all the images saved on my computer, now had this awful over-saturated look, and yet the thumbnails on my desktop looked fine... I realised it must be something to do with the colour profiles, and tried to find out the answer online. My monitor colour profile was set to "21.5 inch monitor" so I changed that to sRGB as default. I can't remember what Photoshop was set to, but at any rate I set it to sRGB also.
I thought I had it fixed, as it seemed to just be Photo Gallery that was not matching up (it was displaying my images with less saturation than as I saved them).
However today I took a new photo of a drawing I'm working on, to load onto my blog. I had to take it into Photoshop to make edits and correct, as always. I opened my photo in Photoshop... lo and behold, far too contrasty and saturated!!
This time, Windows Photo Gallery preview is showing the (unedited, straight out of camera) photo as it should be... Photoshop opens it too contrasty.
I made my edits anyway, saved for web as .jpg, checked the jpg in Photo Gallery before uploading... It saved duller than it should have done!
Uploaded the jpg to the internet... and I have the dull image uploaded.
So first they were too contrasty, now they're too dull. I have tried to follow advice given on similar topics, to no apparent avail.
Being an artist who displays work online and has a certain reliance on the internet... my images have to be accurate and consistent all the way through. Is there anything I can do to set things back to the way they were before?
I appreciate any help.

eartho - All my images are already converted to the sRGB colourspace by default, as far as I can tell. My images out of camera, the ones I have edited and saved as jpg - I even checked some old images. Through Mode/Convert to Profile, they're all already set to sRGB.
emil emil - Thank you. I will do that in the morning - right now my head hurts and I need my bed.

Wrong embedded colour profile causes huge jpg files when published to .Mac

D'oh! i posted the following on the iDisk discussion my mistake. Here it is all again for iWebbites:
I've spent most of the day trying to optimise my new iWeb site on .Mac but the published jpg files are far too big.
Despite sizing to 800x600 px and jpegging at about 5 or 6 in Photoshop which resulted in a file size of about 100kb on my local disk, when uploaded to .Mac via iWeb the they have turned into 800 kb files.
Lots of trouble-shooting, including ensuring that they weren't converted to png, that they have no borders, reflections or drop-shadows yet they still got bloated on the upload. Especially the photos in the photo-gallery page.
I've isolated the problem but don't know what to do next:
Turns out, iWeb ignores the sRGB embedded colour profile and replaces it with the monitor profile of the originating computer.
I discovered this after I opened the file in Photoshop directly via iDisk in Finder. Converting or assigning the file to sRGB and saving it back down to iDisk immediately restored it to its intended file size of 100kb and this time with the correct sRGB colour profile.
Going now to the domain.sites on my local disk and opening the package shows all the photos doubled up. A 360 x 264 .jpeg file with the monitor profile embedded and bloated out to 800kb plus the original 800x600 image with sRGB and .jpg as the file type but still only 100kb
So what the heck is happening in iWeb to do this and to use the wrong file type associations with the wrong file when uploaded?
There is very little on the forum about colour (color) profiles and no mention of the bloat in file size, just a reference to colour and tone issues with the wrong profile so I'm wondering if its related to the 1.1.2 update. (I haven't really tried using iWeb until the last week or so).
Fixing the problem by post processing the photos on my site every time I publish would be impossible with the amount of photos I have and my intention of updating the web galleries regularly.
As you can find out if you go to a photo page on my site:
< <a class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://">http://web.mac.com/adrian_malloch/iWeb/AdrianMallochPhotography/ Kabaddi.html > some pages take horrendously long to load. Check out some of the other Subculture pages. I haven't tested them all but Safari Activity viewer shows that most of the slow speed is related to opening jpeg files.
Any help and informed suggestions would be hugely appreciated.

This is doing my head in.
My last two comments "posted" half way through writing, before I had a chance to edit completely.
Here's how it should have read :
Using sRGB as a monitor profile, in itself, doesn't make a lot of sense.
A monitor profile is custom made specifically for the monitor to compensate for its display characteristics.
A "good enough" monitor profile is to use the software calibration built into the Displays preferences. Go to System Preferences/Displays/Color/Calibrate and follow the prompts. Hint: squint as you try to judge the colour and tone differences. The idea is to make the detail so fuzzy you don't notice it.
It's not very accurate, especially with LCD screens, but it's better than nothing and certainly better than using a universal colour space like sRGB, etc.
The accurate option is to get hold of a hardware calibrator like the Spyder, or Gretag-McBeth iOne Display (which I use). It costs a bit but is vital for accurate repeatable colour.
The whole point is that when the profile is made up and is set as the default profile, then you will get a WYSIWYG screen.
So, the same images will look the same on different monitors providing they each have accurate monitor profiles made specifically for them.
If you use sRGB as your monitor profile then you cannot expect the image to look the same on any one else's machine, whether they use sRGB, a monitor profile or any other profile. Worse still, if you change an image to "look right" on your screen, chances are that the image will look horrible on another screen.
Hence, why I will only switch to sRGB monitor profile as a workaround for uploading in iWeb. Nothing else!!

Press colour profiles / ink density

I am setting up press. I have been given colour profiles. I go edit convert to colour profile. I save the file and place in indesign. I make a high res pdf set to 2001 and this colour profile and my ink density is still too high.
Am I not converting the colour correctly?
I have a lot of press to get out, each with bespoke images and not much time to do it.
Please help. Thanks!

Hello
The colour profile was supplied by the newspaper.
The tac max was stated by the newspaper.
I checked the tac in acrobat > output preview (same as you use)
The image showed up bright green areas showing that the ink density exceeded limit requested.
I must be doing something wrong just not sure what it is?

Illustrator CS4 uninstall colour profile rollback error

I've been using the same version of CS4 since July with no problem until today. I clicked on my AI desktop shortcut to be presented with a new licence agreement popup. Clicked agree and window disappeared but Illustrator didn't start up.
I read some other forum discussions on this subject which suggested uninstall - re-install - reboot. I uninstalled all of CS4 but when I tried to re-install it comes up with an error message.
Adobe support advisor says:
Issue no: id18308
Error UninstallColorProfilesRollback occurs preventing the installer from updating existing color profiles when installing the Adobe Creative Suite 4 product
I have since run through the suggest actions (deleting colour profiles and reassigning permissions) three times.
When I get to point 9 (Click OK in the "Advanced Security Settings" dialog box. Windows will now reset the permissions for each child object to correspond with its parent) I get the following permissions message "Registry editor could not set security in the key selected, or some of it's sub keys".
Is this why it's not working?
Would this also be why my pdf writer doesn't work?
Please help!!!
Edit: It seems Photoshop won't work either I need to uninstall and reinstall...great news as it was pre loaded.
Great work adobe!!

I fixed it eventually...sorry I meant to post a message.
I had to run clean script for CS3 and CS4 to completely remove all the components preventing the install.
http://www.adobe.com/support/contact/cs3clean.html
http://www.adobe.com/support/contact/cs4clean.html
I had little faith, but it worked. Hope this fixes it for you too.

How do I change colour profile of embedded objects?

One of my Illustrator CS6 documents was intially created some time ago without paying much attention to colour management issues. I am now trying to put that right and have assigned the document a profile of Adobe RGB (i998). However, each time I open it I am warned that 'The document has an embedded color profile that does not match the current RGB working space'. It also says that the embedded profile is sRGB, while my working space is Adobe RGB. I get this message three times and am assuming that it refers to embedded objects.
So far, I have failed to find a permanent solution. Do I have to reimport all items that may have a colour profile, having first ensured that they are tagged as AdobeRGB?
David

Hi Monika,
First of all, let me apologise for using the word 'embedded' instead of 'linked'. I was distracted by the fact that the doc in question (an award certificate) is embedded in a Microsoft Access report. That being said, I have now found that all the linked logo images in this Illustrator doc are GIFs or TIFs that don't accept a colour profile (and thus cannot be the trigger for my profile warnings).
I use a Canon 5D and (rightly or wrongly) have chosen to standardise on a CS working space of Adobe RGB. However, your reference to digital photos is not relevant in this case as there are none in the document. My only concern is to make this document match my working space and no longer trigger irritating profile mismatch warnings. My overall objective is to ensure that the colours will all be correct when it goes to a printer (one of our sponsors, a UK colour paper manufacturer, will be printing the final certificates from a PDF file).
David

Colour Profile issues between North America and Europe

I have a corporate colour, C80M80Y0K0 which creates a very attractive shade of purple. Within North America all printouts demonstrate very similar variations of that purple colour. We have an office in UK that uses the same collateral pieces. While they preview correctly on screen, they are unable to reproduce that purple in their office or with their professional suppliers (all digital processes). The resultant colour is blue (approx C92M68Y18K0).
The files are created in Indesign, using a process colour within Indesign, and then exported to a PDF and shared with the UK office.
My guess is that it is a colour profile issue - has anyone else had this same issue, and if it is indeed a colour profile issue, what profile would you recommend using? I've tried using some of the other default profiles within Indesign but with no luck.
Any assistance would be really appreciated.

The resultant colour is blue (approx C92M68Y18K0).
What preset are you using for the Export, or what are the Output settings? Have you tried PDF/X?
PDF/X-4 will leave color unchanged and profile everything, so a color change like you are describing most likely means the wrong output profile is being used in the UK.
PDF/X-1a forces everything into your doc's CMYK space and makes conversions at output less likely—with X-1a your 80|80|0|0 mix will probably be output unchanged.

Colour Profiles missing in InDesign and Illustrator CS3

Adobe CS3
Mac 10.5.8
Hi, I recently brought a new HP Printer (HP Photosmart B110) and installed the software for for it and all the colour profiles for the papers were visible in the drop down box (they were HP Premium Photo, HP Advance and HP Premium Plus Photo) but after updating the drivers they all vanished (see image for InDesign and Illustrator examples).
I contacted HP and uninstalled all the HP software as well as deleting HP related files and then reinstalled the software again but the Colour Profiles were still not visible. I have contacted HP again and they have said that it's something to do with my Adobe software so I was wondering if anyone can help me with solving this problem?
Thanks
Chris

HP is fond of pointing the finger at Adobe, and in fairness their drivers often don't work well with InDesign (HP printers account for the largest number of printer related problems on the forum by far, and I don't think it's just due to market share), but installing color profiles has NOTHING to do with any Adobe software. If the profiles were being installed properly by the HP installer, they's be in the system someplace (probably the colorsynch folder) and they'd be available to other programs even if Adobe apps didn't find them.
If the HP low-level tech feeds you that "it's an Adobe problem" BS again, immediately ask to be escalated to someone who knows what they are talking about, and take names.

Colour profiles and my sanity!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for