Confused about color profile support in PNG

NOTE -- you have to hover over the image to see the real images. The images embedded in the webpage have their profiles stripped -- just like photoshop does! Interesting.
I ask a similar question on this before, but couldn't give a satisfactory demonstration of how photoshop doesn't support color profiles in png's.
But now I have a great one.
Picture A: this is with the correct color profile and displays correctly in firefox and probably other browsers -- also displays correctly on windows desktop and in large-icon view.
Ok, anyone who doesn't believe me, grab that image and try to read it into photoshop...
I do, and get no warning on profile mismatch like I do on jpg's or tiff's:
photoshop strips the existing profile and adds sRGB which isn't the correct profile.
This is how photoshop transforms good colors into bad:
Completly screwed up.
I have had multiple people notice how my png saved images from photoshop had "off" or bad colors -- usually washed out in comparison w/my monitor profile.
I can get 'ok' results if I flatten the image and *convert* my existing profile to sRGB -- and I usually get
something that looks 'acceptable'...though the jpg's render in accurate color.
Basically, photoshop can't read or write png web images. and maintain color fidelity unless they have no profile. Even if they have an sRGB profile, I usually get washed out looking pics if I don't strip it but let adobe convert it.
In googling for my own problem, I found references to this problem in Adobe Photoshop going back to 2002.
Why does adobe refuse to fix this? It's horrible.
They could fix it with a file plugin for existing CS5-6 users, but it really needs to get fixed and Adobe needs to stop ignoring this problem.
:-( I find this extra depressing because I prefer to distribute my pictures losslessly in png, but with photoshop, I'm left with lossy jpegs to get accurate color reproduction.

How did the SFW thing even come up?? When I embed profiles in jpg and tiff, I do it as part of the File Save or File Save As dialog. I can choose what profile to save it with -- and I usually save it with my currently calibrated monitor profile -- as that color profile is what was used to create the picture. Why would I want to convert them to some other profile?? Only thing I have needed to convert have been PNG's because it doesn't embed my monitor profile in the PNG the same way jpg and tiff do.
If it did, png's would look the same as jpgs and tiffs... but the jpgs and tiffs have the full depth of color and look the same as they do in PS. png's look washed out because -- it's been my belief that PS is not storing my profile in the png, but setting a bit in the file to use the sRGB profile.
AFAIK, PNG provided for a sRGB profile-compat bit -- so images that were compat w/that profile could just set a bit rather than including a profile. I see no evidence that PS is saving my monitor profile with the PNG.
My 'settings' for RGB are to convert to working RGB profile which is my monitor profile.
I do have it set to ask me abou profile mismatches on opening or pasting.
Since I don't get a 'this document has a different color profile than the working space'
message when I edit most png's, I assume it has none. Thus from my settings
it should autoconvert it to my monitor profile and save that on save -- which seems to be what happens when I save as jpg or tiff (or I can check off the box to save profile...but I usually don't).

Similar Messages

Color space support for png files

kindly suggesting :
color space support for png files, requiring the support (read/write) of the chunks: iCCP, cHRM, gAMA, sRGB

Hi ChrisT,
Thanks for the suggestion. I went to:
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/softwareCategory?os=4063&lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&sw_lang=&product=4148...
Which is the software update page for my model. I see 10 items under Software Solutions, 8 of which are just video tutorial updates, not actual application updates (and none of those are for the Photo App). The two application updates are:
HP TouchSmart Recipe Box Application Update
HP Support Assistant Application Update
So, are you saying that PNG file types are supported in some versions of the Photo App and I don't have the correct version? Or in other words, what am I missing?
Cheers,
D

Confused about color vs. b/w photos for printing...and more

I reading confusing things about exporting a PDF for printing with both color and black and white images used in the same document.
If I export to PDF and do a soft-proof and it looks okay, is that sufficient? If so, what's confusing about that, since this is my first print project, which Simulation Profile do I use? Is there a chart somewhere that compares U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 to let's say 80 lb Gloss book with Aqueous coating (C2S)?
I don't know what any of this means. So, is there a good article on this site, elsewhere, or an online printer who can help a rookie like me ensure I end up with a decent product?
UPrinting.com advertises a "Free Project Review" that includes the following:
Our team will run your file through a 30-point inspection, covering technical issues including:
Artwork dimensions
Bleed setup
Low resolution images
Elements that are not within the safe zone
Image clipping
Font sizes
Un-embedded fonts
Folding setup
Page scaling
Line weights
Proper text spacing (compressed/expanded)
Narrow borders that are at risk of being cut
Compliance with USPS Mailing Guidelines
Bindery setup for multi-page artwork
What should I do? Is this trustworthy as long as I get a contract proof? Is there a "Go To" online printer that everyone loves (not sure you can recommend that here) or should I seek out a local printer?
I'm using CS4 and have a file that's (maybe) ready to go but am looking at a learning curve of days if not weeks if I have to figure it all out myself.
Thanks everyone.
Paul

InDesign puts grayscale and B&W (bitmap mode) art on the Black plate, where it belongs, so if you soft proof using the CMYK profile for your expected output conditions your preview will be accurate for the grayscale and B&W images as they will appear in print. presuming your monitor is calibrated and profiled so that you can trust what you see.
Aqueous coating is applied AFTER the printing to protect, and possible enhance the glossiness of, the page (but not all coatings are glossy). This is not the same thing as printing on coated paper, which has a glossy surface and high ink holdout (and improves detail reproduction and usually will geive better color). You should be using whatever profile the printer has specified.

Iphoto 9.5 not supporting color profiles supported in '11

JPG Photos in iphoto 11 from Scancafe.com with color profile OS14000_A2_B8_oG that worked with iphoto '11, now not working with iphoto 9.5 and now unable to re-import.
First some background. I was using iphoto 11 and had no problem importing the scancafe jpg photos (color photos) from the DVD's. Everything was fine until I upgraded my mac mini to mavericks and upgraded iphoto 11 to 9.5. It seems iphoto 9.5 does not support the color profile of the jpgs that were scanned by scancafe. That color profile is OS14000_A2_B8_oG. I noticed that after upgrade of iphoto, that jpgs with this color profile are no longer seen at full size (they are visible as preview in iphoto, they are also visible in the mac program Preview, they also seem to work in aperture). But, when I try to view as full size in iphoto it is just black. Interstingly, the face detection from iphoto 11 still hovers, but now over black photo. The photo is still in the Masters area of the iphoto library, iphoto is just unable to view as full size.
When I tried to import the photo again, iphoto says the jpgs are unreadable. So, after hours of frustration, I realized iphoto doesn't seem to be supporting the color profile: OS14000_A2_B8_oG. When I used Adobe Lightroom 5 (Imported all first) to export as jpg (batch export) and removed the color profile (it then defaults to sRGB), the pictures were able to be imported into iphoto and were visible at full size.
To make a long story short, it seems that apple didn't provide support for this color profile with iphoto 9.5. Which is interesting, because they used to support it in iphoto 11.
Any ideas how I can save the work I have done on these photos: descriptions, face recognition, etc. without having to reimport jpgs with new color profile?
It would seem simple for apple to support the color profile and continue to do so. This foreshadows the slow removal of support for older file format and color profiles as software is upgraded. Will the photos in our iphoto library be visible in 10 years without conversions and reimporting? This is a concerning precedent.

Not what but who. That would be me. Keith is referring to this Applescrip: Embed sRGB Profile-Applescript, that you can download from Toad's Cellar. However, I've found it doesn't work on all files and have created an Automator workflow that is more reliable: Convert to JPG and Embed sRGB profile.
Both are on Toad's Cellar and you can try both. They will have to be applied to the image files outside of iPhoto before importing into iPhoto.
Happy Holidays

Always so confused about color!!

Can someone tell me how to get beautiful bright colors when I export to pdf? I am trying to brighten these photos as much as possible in photoshop so that they'll be bright when they print out, but every time I export to pdf, they dull down and all look slightly more greyish-brown. Is there something I could do to make this better?
Here's how they look in InDesign's preview:
And how they look in Preview App:
And they're not just dark in Mac's Preview app... They are printing dark. Any comments?

I asked the local printer that we're printing with. They said that the color profile they always use is this US SWOP one. And that they also print on a sheet-fed offset press. What do you make of this?
I don't think all printers necessarily have a grip on color management or they might want to simply avoid the liability of color management and conversions. It sounds like they just use the InDesign defaults, but that doesn't mean the profile of their (sheetfed) press is actually US SWOP.
If your jobs are consistently printing too dark, I would consider using US Sheetfed Coated as your document CMYK profile. It allows for more dot gain and density. There's nothing you can do about RGB color that is outside of the CMYK color gamut.

One again about color profiles and lightroom

I have wide gamut monitor (nec pa271w) and I tried to calibrate it. After calibration it created new color profile and make it default in windows color managment. But now all pictures in Lightroom are not so colourful as they were before. If I choose srgb(default profile for windows) the colors become as they were before calibration but in this case I see srgb color space and not full color that my monitor can produce. I read articles about calibration but didn't find how to solve the problem with lightroom.

You wrote
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}But now all pictures in Lightroom are not so colourful as they were before.
This is probably the effect of your now calibrated monitor vs. the uncalibrated one.
Often uncalibrated monitors show highly over-saturated colors. It looks very rich and flashy and people are wowed.
But these over-saturated colors cannot be printed and do not reflect the true state of the image data.
When your monitor is calibrated properly it will display the colors as they should be.
When you chose sRGB all the colors - particularly the reds and greens - will appear more saturated. That is the effect of this color space that is much smaller than Adobe RGB or Pro Photo RGB.
LR will automatically find and select your calibrated color profile if it is saved in the right place / folder.
And you can't change that. There is no provision for a different color space in LR.
WW
PS: As Pete and other posters have said already: Set the white point of your monitor to 6500 - that is the accepted standard. Don't choose sRGB to make your photos look good. Rather work with a calibrated monitor and then edit your photos in LR to your liking. You seem to think that your photos are a given and you have to adjust your monitor to make them look good - that's not how it's done.
WW

Basic Color Profiles Question (using PNG's)

Hi,
I've read up on color profiles, and I must admit, it all seems a bit complicated to me.
I've tried saving images with sRGB color profile, Adobe RGB, and even NO color profile.
While each test has yielded various saturation levels (sRGB seems more saturated than Adobe RGB), the one single constant in all of them is that IE displays more (too?) colorful images than FF.
I understand that IE doesn't color manage while FF does, but that hardly explains the results I'm getting. If I don't color manage a document, shouldn't it display the same way in IE and FF? And how to explain that the sRGB profile documents are more saturated in IE than the Adobe RGB ones, if IE cannot read color profiles? And why does FF display *both* sRGB and Adobe RGB as less saturated than these same images in IE?
Thanks.

Actually, Photoshop DOES embed a profile in a PNG if you use Save As, not Save for Web. Go figure.
[ admin - it was an oversight, that some bored engineer undoubtedly has addressed by now ]
Microsoft shows no sign of interest in advancing the state of the art of computing, and I mean that in the most serious, somber way. There's no evidence that Internet Explorer will ever take into account a monitor profile.
And no, there's no way to make Firefox and IE match on anything but an sRGB monitor. Sorry. This is one reason why I have set up an sRGB reference system myself.
-Noel

Confused about Bandwidth Profiler - what's it telling me?

Hi All,
I'm confused about the bandwidth profiler. I have two
different SWF
files, both are profiled for 56K modem. One file is 253K, 150
x 260 px,
599 frames @ 10fr/sec showing a preload of 96 frames (9.6 s),
frame 1 is
45K. The other is 197K, 800 x 150 px, 1009 frames @ 12fr/sec
showing a
preload of 484 frames (40.3 s), frame 1 is 189K. Why does the
preload
for the smaller file take 40.3 sec. while the larger file is
only 9.6
sec.? And what does preload mean? It appears to indicate how
long it
will take to download frame 1, is that correct? Why is the
Frame 1 size
so different between the two? And why does the smaller file
size have a
much larger frame 1 size. I just don't see why a smaller file
should
take longer to load than a larger file.
Any help would be appreciated.

preloaders preload all frames - usually a percentage -
unfortunately most developers make you wait
until 100% of the movie (all frames/content) is loaded when,
if built correctly, only a much smaller
percentage needs to be loaded before playing. Sounds like one
of your movies has embedded fonts or
objects set for export on frame 1 (like components) and they
all have to loaded first (before frame
1 actually) because flash doesn't know where in your movie
they are located.
Chris Georgenes / mudbubble.com / keyframer.com / Adobe
Community Expert
Brett wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm confused about the bandwidth profiler. I have two
different SWF
> files, both are profiled for 56K modem. One file is
253K, 150 x 260 px,
> 599 frames @ 10fr/sec showing a preload of 96 frames
(9.6 s), frame 1 is
> 45K. The other is 197K, 800 x 150 px, 1009 frames @
12fr/sec showing a
> preload of 484 frames (40.3 s), frame 1 is 189K. Why
does the preload
> for the smaller file take 40.3 sec. while the larger
file is only 9.6
> sec.? And what does preload mean? It appears to indicate
how long it
> will take to download frame 1, is that correct? Why is
the Frame 1 size
> so different between the two? And why does the smaller
file size have a
> much larger frame 1 size. I just don't see why a smaller
file should
> take longer to load than a larger file.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.

About color profiles

Hi Friends i am Murali From india.
i have one dout friends
i make on File From Photoshop.
using color profile : sRGB IEc
i need to output for CMYK. so i am convert to CMYK
that CMYK Image Is added Darkenss. so the quality is not
well.
that images ICC Profile for CMYK : US Coated 2
i need same result as well as RGB to CMYK
so pls help me dear brothers. how to solve the problem.
SelvaMurali
PrePress
Krause Violet CTP (Photopolymer)
Colenta Processor
Herliquin RIP
Adobe Creative Suite CS2

You wrote
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}But now all pictures in Lightroom are not so colourful as they were before.
This is probably the effect of your now calibrated monitor vs. the uncalibrated one.
Often uncalibrated monitors show highly over-saturated colors. It looks very rich and flashy and people are wowed.
But these over-saturated colors cannot be printed and do not reflect the true state of the image data.
When your monitor is calibrated properly it will display the colors as they should be.
When you chose sRGB all the colors - particularly the reds and greens - will appear more saturated. That is the effect of this color space that is much smaller than Adobe RGB or Pro Photo RGB.
LR will automatically find and select your calibrated color profile if it is saved in the right place / folder.
And you can't change that. There is no provision for a different color space in LR.
WW
PS: As Pete and other posters have said already: Set the white point of your monitor to 6500 - that is the accepted standard. Don't choose sRGB to make your photos look good. Rather work with a calibrated monitor and then edit your photos in LR to your liking. You seem to think that your photos are a given and you have to adjust your monitor to make them look good - that's not how it's done.
WW

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!

No color profiles on PNGs?

Just curious why Photoshop doesn't allow you to attach a color profile to PNGs? The PNG spec supports ICC profiles.

Chris Cox wrote:
… it's been a while, so we might investigate re-enabling the profile support in PNG.
Aha! And here you had me assuming all along that it was a limitation of the PNG format as such due to some specification!

Color Profile Problem

Hey, I have a question about color profiles.
If you go to system preferences -> display -> color, and use "Color LCD." Now click on "calibrate," use expert mode, and click continue all the time. does the screen change at all?
Mine seems to become greener, is that a problem?

Hi haginile,
When you start the calibration did you follow the instructions and move the sliders around until the Apple icon in the box looks neutral gray to you before hitting the continue button?
Jrsy
Actually I forgot to mention that you need to adjust both left and right sliders through each of the five calibration steps before continuing to the next step.
Message was edited by: Jrsy Man

Color profile confusion

I'm using Windows 7 home premium, Lightroom 5.2 RC, Photoshop CS6. After working on an image in Lightroom, I went to Photoshop to do some finishing. In the process I wanted to convert the profile from prophoto to sRGB. I expected to see the choice of sRGB_IEC61966-2-1, but the selection was eSRGB, and the other one wasn't even on the list. So I did a Google search and found sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_no_black_scaling.icc but I can't figure out where to install it or even if I need to install it. I know, this isn't a Photoshop forum. But I wondered if anyone here could advise me as to what to do.
My printed images seem to match fine and so do the prints I get back from a local lab and from MyPublisher. So I'm a little confused. Any ideas?

Hi Jim I'm also using PS CS6 on Windows 7 64 bit. Color profiles are in this folder:
C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color
Below is what my PS CS6 Edit> Convert To Profle> Destination Space proifle list looks like. I have an sRGB IEC61966-2-1 profile, which shows up in the Windows folder as sRGB.icc with sRGB IEC61966-2.1 'Profile Description' name using ExifTool GUI.
Here's Adobe's color profile download link, but no sRGB profile here so PS is using the Windows installed sRGB profile (sRGB.ICC in the above folder)
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4075
At bottom of above of the profile list in the above page it has this link:
http://www.color.org/index.xalter
....sRGB v4, and v2 profiles with and without black scaling here:
http://www.color.org/srgbprofiles.xalter
Are you confused yet...I am!
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html

Apple TV support color profiles in photos?

I've come across a problem with color in my photos. I use Aperture as my photo editor, and most photos have been taken in the RAW format. When iTunes shares photos to the Apple TV 2, it uses the previews generated by Aperture. These previews are JPGs with an embedded color profile of Adobe RGB (1998). You have no control over this. Aperture always uses this color profile for RAW photos.
Now let's say I export a photo from Aperture into JPG format, using the sRGB profile. I can open this photo in Preview, and open the Aperture-generated preview version in Preview, and they look identical. I can also import the JPG back into Aperture, and again it looks identical to the RAW version when viewed by Aperture. This is to be expected because Aperture and Preview are color-managed apps. However, the sRGB version, when viewed on the Apple TV 2, is way more saturated then the Adobe RGB version. Does this mean that the combination of iTunes and Apple TV isn't color-managed? Does it, for instance, assume that all photos are sRGB? This is a major problem, because if I have a mixture of RAW and JPG photos the colors will not be consistent between them when shown via the Apple TV.
Any thoughts welcome!

Stephen Dawson1 wrote:
Well, as far as I'm aware, Apple TV 2 "streams" photos via iTunes. Aperture has a preference to "Share previews with iLife and iWork". It is these previews that are picked up by iTunes and by the media browser in Finder (via an XML file produced by Aperture, and also by iPhoto). The photo browser icon in a new email compose window will also use these. So no, Apple TV doesn't support RAW directly - it doesn't have to, because the photos shared from Aperture or iPhoto are always JPGs. But the previews produced by Aperture (and iPhoto - I just tested that) from a RAW file have the Adobe RGB profile, and it doesn't look like the workflow handles that properly at all when it comes to Apple TV or even emailing photos from outside Aperture/iPhoto (it's not a good idea to be emailing JPGs that have an Adobe RGB profile). Sorry, I'm starting to sound like a broken record!
You mentioned Winston. Where does he hang out?
Thanks again for your continued interest...
Winston hangs about all over the place, especially here.
In all honesty I think this goes beyond any configuration issue you have control over as a user and I would advise you to send feedback to AppleTV and Aperture teams:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/
I'm not sure if you're shooting RAW and JPG or just RAW but if both I think I'd be inclined to set iTunes Advanced preferences to share a Smart Album of JPGs only (assuming that's possible).
AC

Does 23" Apple Cinema Display support sAdobe Color Profile?

i was told the 23" Apple Cinema display does not support sAdobe color profile, can anyone confirm if does or not, thank.

I take it back. NEC sell a monitor that acheives 107% of the Adobe Color Space.
http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Series/?series=800fe9d4-c3a9-410a-98ee-6f546c e833d4
NEC seem to be a leader in this regard.
http://www.nec.co.jp/techrep/en/journal/g06/n03/060316.html

Confused about color profile support in PNG

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for