HDV to better color space

Hi I have been trying to figure out what is 4:4:4 Chroma Filtering does.
It is an option in Pro Res.
I heard downsizing the video to SD then exporting it as 4:4:4.
So if i took HDV from HV40 made a capture preset with 1280x720 and color space 4:4:4 or converted the HDV full to Apple Pro Res (HQ) 422 1280x720 with chroma filtering 4:4:4. Would i have a much easier time Chroma Keying.
720p is ok I dont really need 1080p but if it don't matter let me know.
I will be doing a bit of Chroma Keying with the HV40.
Note I am still trying to find out what I can. But if anyone has any knowledge of stuff like this please help me out.

Thanks though but I read that a few weeks ago. Very nice it thought me a lot. I never knew thats how it worked and I learned what all the numbers meant.

Similar Messages

  • Open in external editor -- original color space workaround

    I was frustrated--like other's whose posts I've read--by the fact that when opening files (tiff, jpeg, psd) in an external editor they are all converted to the Adobe 1998 rgb space.
    I am working around this comfortably and by using some Automator actions that I got from Ben Long's Complete Digital Photography site: http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=414#more-414
    In my Pictures folder I have an Auto Processing subfolder with Photoshop droplets and lots of 'hot folders' tied to Applescript folder actions. I made two new folders: OPEN in Photoshop & IMPORT to Aperture
    The Open in Photoshop folder has attached from Automator the following actions from the default Finder suite: Open Finder Items and Move to Trash.
    The Open action is self explanitory, the next step of moving the recently opened file to the trash guarantees that I can't save to the source file. This forces Photoshop to do a Save As even if I hit command + S. The Save As prompts me for a location and I choose the Import to Aperture folder.
    The IMPORT to Aperture folder has attached the Import Photos action from Ben Long's Aperture suite. By selecting the Delete the Source Images After Importing Them option and the Show Action When Run option I get a prompt asking what project to add the new files to and the old files are deleted from my hot folder after the import.
    This isn't a perfect round trip solution because I still end up with two copies of the image in Aperture--even if I was just opening the source image to tweak an adjustment layer. I might create an Applescript that would prompt the user and delete the precvious copy of the image if desired.
    Like many of you I was feeling blue yesterday about rumors of changes in the Aperture team at Adobe. Blue not because I beleive Aperture's going away, instead because I expect if this rumor is true that we will see some delays in the short term while the new team gets up to speed.
    While I am waiting for that to happen I intend to use this discussion site to find creative workarounds for Aperture's current limitations and share them as widely as possible. Many of you are already doing the same.
    Thanks!

    Yes you could do that.
    I was part of the alpha/beta test group for Adobe CS2. Most of my work was with scripting and automation, especially for Bridge. I did have a very good dialog with Bruce Fraser, Seth Resnick and other testers whose opinions are as good as fact in my book.
    The consensus was that most digital cameras--certainly the pro models--had a color gamut substantially larger than Adobe RGB (1998). Note that ACR give the option of developing an image into sRGB, Adobe RGB, Color Match RGB, or Pro Photo RGB; 8-bit or 16-bit. That's the way I want it in Aperture.
    If you use the perceptial rendering intent (this is almost certainly what Aperture is using as its undisclosed default setting) then you will compress the wider gamut of the camera into the smaller Adobe RGB (1998) gamut. If in Photoshop you used the Convert to profile command and choose the perceptial rendering you would probably expand the color gamut back out a little bit. Why bother? Aperture really should have options for open in external editor like the very good export version settings.
    I have in my Aperture library a bunch of 16-bit grayscale scans and some CYMK files that seem to be working fine with the workflow above and Automator actions. (Lab files won't import.) I wouldn't want to go through the convert to Adobe RGB (1998) and reconvert to proper space with these files. My workflow is letting my store these files in Aperture and still edit in native color spaces in Photoshop with minimal effort for a round trip. I like it.
    P.S. I said in my original post that it would be easy to write an Applscript to delete the orignial file in Aperture when reimporting a slightly modified Photoshop version. It may be possible but its not easy in the current version which only has a bare skeleton of Applescript functionality.

  • Color Space Management & Final Color Output-not WYSIWYG?

    I have constantly had problems with getting final output color to match what i am seeing on my monitors when color correcting. This has been a continual problem mainly with R3d footage and going to Prores...but for the sake of this discussion here is my prime example:
    Start a new project in PrPro and clor from PrPro adding effects, 3 way color, 3rd party effects like Finesse and Colorista...then output the project to Tiff for master then convert from Tiff sequence to Prorest; H264 or anything else....But, when i output a prores file, and then open the prores file on its own--not brining it back into Premier...i notice a shift in colors....completely desaturated etc...this happens whehter i choose for gamma as "auto" or "none" when choosing codec settings for prores. I've had this continual problem for many years and the ONLY way i have found it to work is by using Apple's Color and then going to Prores....seems apple hardware and software work well together...but this cannot be an isolated incident with me only...AND coloring a project on your desktop and putting all that work into it and seeing it DIFFERENT at the end of the day is more than a let down...
    ...so maybe a discussion on properly setting a project for color work is in order...I came across another forum members website reToolednet and he had some great info on setting up the sequence timeline and video preview area that is great info...but even when i do that i cannot get a perfect match at the end of the output....Exapmples below all done in PrPro and then output to Prores 4444.
      I've found info on Adobe site that does not seem current about setting project settings and color space, but no place in PrPro do i find that setting...is this only AE?  OR...can we even do a proper color job within PrPr?  or should that be done elsewhere?
      Id like to go through the proper steps of setting workspace and color schemes for say a Prores output since that is likely 75% to 90% of everyone's deliverables in the tv realm....
    Snapsot of Tiff sequence WITHIN PrPro (colored)
    Final Output from PrPro to Prores--snap from actual QT prores file--(Desaturated)
    When i began this project i had my sequence settings to R3d 1080p @ 29.97 and video previews to Iframe....
    **NOW, i think i would have been better off to change video preview to my final output of Prores 4444...BUT, i tried that and still see a color shift.
    **Note, i oriingally colored this on 5.5 with Matrox out to my color corrected monitors....and results on those monitors DO and WILL be diffrent than what you see on your computer screen....my monitors were set to rec709 and RGB at end of the line for viewing....but i see nothing within PrPro on how to set this....however at end of the day i do not get what i see on my preview monitors....

    Thanks Jim....yes, i'm covered on all cc monitors and quite used ot viewing output on color calibrated...as well viewing both on the same platform/monitor....The BIG question is PrPr being able to do color work---and my question is why would it have all the color effects if it did not?  But i agree with you....first place to start is can you do proper color work on PrPr AT ALL?  no problem to do a quick web video...but can you properly color a for television product---I seem to think NO....i could not get colors in end to match....i can view out on PrPr view my I/O box (Matrox MXO2) and see great colors that i colored the project on to my FSI color corrected monitor....but then when i view the ProRes file back (not on PrPro)...but on it's own with its own codec engine...this is where things go awry and stray from colors i originally put on the images...
    But this is a PARAMOUNT subject as Pr is offering coloring....i hate to bring this in, but in FCP i can get accurate colors on my Matrox and same when rendered out to Prores file....Again, i think Apple plays well with apple.....but as you say, there are a great number of varialbes involved in the preferences etc...within PrPr...seems to me AE may be better just by reading about it...but why not both?

  • Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

    I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
    Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
    So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
    Thanks for any help!
    Michael

    Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    PS RGB Workspace:  ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
    Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
    I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
    Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient?  Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
    For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
    Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
    With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values.  If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour.  With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase.  Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
    Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
    Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
    Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

  • Problem of color spaces when i switch between photoshop cc 2014 and lightroom 5.7. where to ask

    hallo,
    where can we ask questions on photoshop cc 2014 tools ?
    i have a prophoto nef in lightroom which is retouched.
    i edit in photoshop cc to make a selection and come back to lightroom with a huge psd.
    it says color space of photoshop is not correct and advises prophoto. i say yes.
    first one day i lost the pen tool mask when i wanted to re-edit from lightroom. fortunately the version of psd on hard disk was ok. never understood what happened
    second is i want to open a jpg background on my hard disk, perhaps srgb, in photoshop and add the selection.
    how to manage color spaces because my colors of the selection or the background become ugly
    not sure i still need to use lightroom for this step. bridge or photoshop itselfs can open files,...
    best regards
    marc

    That's great, but what exactly did it - matrix (gamma) profiles instead of LUT? It would be good to know for future reference.
    I have seen small problems with LUT profiles in Firefox, like black clipping up to value 6 or 7, but Lightroom seems to behave well with LUT profiles here. The problem with LUT profiles is that they are "heavier" and more complex, because they contain complete tables for all possible transformations - whereas matrix profiles do it by much simpler mathematical formulae. LUT is more accurate, but matrix simpler and more reliable.
    Not that I think accuracy is a problem with Eizo CGs. Which is why it's a bit puzzling that ColorNavigator has LUT as default. I use mostly matrix targets these days, my feeling is that the simpler the profile, the better.

  • Is there a way to assign Color Spaces in AME (Adobe Media Encoder) CC?

    I am trying to output h.264 video for a web project and cannot seem to get sRGB color match when rendering out from AE.
    I see it in AE's native renderer, but not in AME.
    Thanks.

    AME (and Premiere Pro) does not support color management in the way that After Effects does. Via Dynamic Link, which is how AME reads After Effects comps, the color-space-adjusted pixels are not corrected for screen display.
    To get the results you want, add an adjustment layer to the top of the layer stack in the comp and apply the Color Profile Converter effect. Set the Output Profile to Rec.709 (sRGB is practically identical and will also work, but Dynamic Link uses Rec.709 internally so is a better match). This forces After Effects to transform the adjusted pixels into a non-linearized color space that looks correct.
    Note that while the CPC effect is active and View > Display Color Management is enabled (it is enabled by default), this extra layer of color transforms will make the comp appear incorrect in After Effects, at the same time the comp will now look correct in AME or Premiere Pro. Disable Display Color Management to make the appearance of the comp in After Effects match what you see in AME or Premiere Pro. While working on the comp, however, you probably want to work with Display Color Management enabled and the adjustment layer disabled.
    Under the hood, when color management is enabled in After Effects, the pixels it writes into the cache include the appropriate color transforms for the settings you have chosen. When the comp is displayed in the Composition panel in After Effects, an additional transform is added to the screen buffer pixels (not the pixels in the cache) to make it look correct on your computer screen, or not if you have disabled Display Color Management. When the pixels are read through Dynamic Link, no display color management happens, nor does AME or Premiere Pro apply any, so you get the same appearance as having Display Color Management disabled in After Effects.
    Make sense?

  • Color space when exporting from RAW

    Hello,
    I am a new user of Lightroom and I find color spaces topic a bit confusing so far. My main question is: when exporting a photo, does Lightroom convert to a profile or assign a profile? Because there is no way to choose. I tried to export a photo with 3 different color spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB and ICC profile from laboratory where I print my photos). After exporting them to JPEG it turned out that all of them look differently on my monitor - does it mean that Lightroom assigns a profile? If it was converting, shouldn't they have the same colours? What is more, after printing them in laboratory, results were completely different than I expected - the photo which had closest colours to what I saw in Lightroom was that in sRGB, but that with ICC of Lab was very different (much colder colours).
    Where is the problem, or what aspect do I seem to misunderstand? Do I have wrong settings, should I use DNG to work with photos, should I export to TIFF, or I just have too weak monitor or wrongly calibrated one? Should I calibrate when viewing a picture in Lightroom or with the use of a photo exported to the ICC profile of Lab?
    I would like to have a little bit of control over what I'm working on, depending on whether I want to publish it on a website or print. I know that my monitor can be a problem (I have an iiyama with IPS), but surely there has to be any way to make results of my work a bit closer to my expectations.
    Just for information, my workflow doesn't require Photoshop, as I rather prefer to use only tools from Lightroom. I hope that my problem doesn't require the use of Photoshop.
    I will be really greateful for your help - the general knowledge about colour spaces seems to be unsufficient when it comes to the usage of applications such as Lightroom.
    Many thanks,
    Marcin

    Marcin S wrote:
    Thank you for you helpful replies. Now I know a little bit more about it. But still, this is not completely clear to me.
    My main question is: when exporting a photo, does Lightroom convert to a profile or assign a profile?
    Both.
    What you mean by both? How should I interpret it? I cannot choose "convert" or "assign", so how they both work together? What does it mean for me wanting to process photo and print in Lab?
    I can only add, that those 3 photos which I exported to JPEG with 3 different colour spaces, they look different when viewing outside of Lightroom, ie. IrfanView. But when importing those JPEGs into Lightroom, differences are extremly slight. Is that because Lightroom operates in ProPhoto, which covers all colour spaces which I used, and other programs work in sRGB and those photos differently?
    And the last question for now: will the hardware calibrator help in monitor which is, let's say, medium cost and medium quality? I mainly use it for preparing photos to put them on the website gallery, but would be nice if I could print better ones with a bit of certainty about what I will get from Lab.
    Many thanks!!
    Marcin
    When you export a photo from LR, it converts to the colour space you select (e.g. sRGB) and embeds the appropriate profile in the exported file. 
    If your monitor were calibrated and profiled, and you view with a colour-managed viewer then images should look pretty much identical no matter which colour space you export in.  (W7 Photo viewer is colour managed, the XP equivalent isn't, Mac s/w generally is.  IE and Chrome aren't properly colour managed, Firefox is for all images, Safari is for images with embedded profiles.  Other viewers vary.)  With colour-managed viewers, the only difference should be with very highly saturated colours outside sRGB colour space (and then only if your monitor can display those colours). 
    LR is colour managed.  If the monitor isn't calibrated/profiled then I think LR assumes the monitor has a colour space equivalent to sRGB (which is generally roughly right but won't be accurate).  Internally LR uses ProPhoto RGB colour space in develop module, but uses Adobe RGB in Library, and previews are stored in Adobe RGB.  However, the colour space LR uses won't explain why other viewers show things differently.  It's simply that LR is colour managed (which means it converts to/from the image colour space), and I guess the other viewers you're using aren't; they just throw RGB data at the screen without converting. 
    Is it worth calibrating and profiling your monitor?  Quite possibly.  Does the colour and brightness vary with viewing angle as you move your head from side to side?  If so, it may be TN technology, and perhaps not worth profiling.  If it looks reasonably stable with different viewing angle then probably yes. 

  • Is there a way in LR to tell what color space a photo is stored in?

    I have a lot of 16 bit Tiff files in my Lightroom library.  I am looking for an easy way to determine what color space has been assigned to them.  The only way I know to find out is to open them in Photoshop.  Does Lightroom have a way to tell me?  That seems like a pretty basic capability for a high level photo software program like Lightroom, but I can't find it.  Does the Tiff file still have the original RGB numbers that the RAW file had, or have they been changed to suite the color space used?  If the original numbers are still there, then maybe the assigned color space does not matter, and I can change it if I want? I am Using Lightroom 5.5 on a windows 7 64 system.

    In Lr5 - yes, well: sorta..
    No display on right under Metadata, nor in lib filters, but smart collections have rule - see 'Color -> Source Color Profile'. Unfortunately, you need to know ahead of time what to look for, but still: it's better than nothing..
    For example:
    will round up all photos with Adobe RGB profile.
    And you can have another with 'contains sRGB' ...
    ~R.

  • What color space as base in a brand guide?

    What color space forms the base of a color brand guide? How do you start in terms of color spesifications? When I look at most guides it seems that Pantone is always the base, then CMYK, then RGB and Hex? Is RGB and Hex always gonna be a dithered version of the CMYK values or is it best practise to hand pick each one to make them look as close to the CMYK as possible? Is Pantone always mentioned first in the list because that's where the designer started?
    Also, is best practise to mimmick the CMYK and Pantone colors so that the RGB and hex values look like them? Seems to me that most brand guides / visual manuals are made firstly for print, then they add the screen based color spaces.
    In the enclosed example I also observe that the complete values are not always listed, in many cases the Y and K is missing in the CMYK values, does that mean it doesn't contain any black, or is it simply meaning zero? It rarerly occurs with the other color spaces.

    For web, email and screen in general it should always be sRGB. Then you can be fairly certain that it will display correctly (more or less) in any scenario. sRGB wil also work for print (inkjet), it's just that many colors that can be printed are out of sRGB gamut, so it's a restriction that doesn't need to be there. sRGB is a small color space that can't reproduce very saturated colors - they're just clipped. So it's better to start with a larger space like Adobe RGB or even ProPhoto.
    For editing purposes you want a large color space simply to have headroom and not hit the wall at every move. The final destination may well be a smaller space, like a printer profile. The software then converts to that destination profile as it goes to the printer. You can soft proof to the printer profile to get an impression of how the final result will look.
    You can print directly from InDesign, but the typical InDesign workflow is to export a finished PDF. That is where you specify a final destination profile for the whole document, whether a certain CMYK profile for offset press, or an RGB profile for screen. So you have your master InDesign file, and output PDFs for each destination. The InDesign file can contain placed RGB images in any color space, while text and graphic elements are CMYK. Then everything is converted in one go at export.
    You should always go through the PDF Export dialog carefully. Use the presets, but don't automatically accept defaults. For specific purposes, ask here or in the InDesign forum, where they deal with this all the time.
    For screen, under "Output" use convert to destination, sRGB, include profile. Under "Compression", things aren't as obvious as they used to be (downsample to 96 or 100 ppi), because of the new retina displays that can benefit from a higher resolution. I hold my judgement on this one.

  • Color Space Question For Printing

    I have multiple newbie questions so please bear with me
    Normally when working in photoshop, I tend to use the RGB color space as I need the use of filters and other effects not available in CMYK, Now when printing flyers E.g A4 Sized I tend to save the PSD in RGB (Without Flattening) and then importing it into a CMYK color space in illustrator and then exporting as a PDF, as illustrator gives me the option to create bleed as well as trim marks, I have never exported a PDF from photoshop as it always gives me the option of photoshop pdf which is kinda heavy.
    My question is, is the process I use okay for printing? or do I first need to convert it into CMYK? or just export from photoshop itself?  Also, the other reason I use illustrator is if i'm making a business card with two sides, since text is better exported from illustrator.
    Could anyone tell me a simpler process for creating for digital print? Especially if I need to do some items in illustrator as well.

    >> images are still a bit washed out with a warmish/ yellow cast to them, particularly, my black and white images
    Here is a simple test to help evaluate if the monitor profile is reasonably good:
    Open a RGB file in Photoshop (flatten if not already flattened).
    Press M key> Drag a selection> Com+Shift+U (Desaturate).
    Com+Z (to toggle back and forth).
    If the unsaturated selection looks neutral you've got a reasonably fair monitor profile.
    If selection has color casts (not neutral) -- you have a bad monitor profile
    +++++
    Here is a simple test to help evaluate if a bad monitor profile is whacking out your Photoshop color:
    Monitors/Displays (control panel)> Color> highlight AppleRGB or sRGB (don't run Calibrate), quit and reboot.
    If the Photoshop colors are back under control, then the problem was most surely a bad monitor profile go back into Monitors/Displays> Color and Calibrate a good profile highlight (load) sRGB, or preferably, the monitor's OEM profile as a starting point.
    If you are using a puck, it is likely defective; or your monitor hardware is the culprit...search it on Google by model number

  • Color Space and Bit Depth - What Makes Sense?

    I'm constantly confused about which color space and bit depth to choose for various things.
    Examples:
    - Does it make any sense to choose sRGB and 16-bits? (I thought sRGB was 8-bit by nature, no?)
    - Likewise for AdobeRGB - are the upper 8-bits empty if you use 16-bits?
    - What is the relationship between Nikon AdobeWide RGB, and AdobeRGB? - if a software supports one, will it support the other?
    - ProPhoto/8-bits - is there ever a reason?...
    I could go on, but I think you get the idea...
    Any help?
    Rob

    So, it does not really make sense to use ProPhoto/8 for output (or for anything else I guess(?)), even if its supported, since it is optimized for an extended gamut, and if your output device does not encompass the gamut, then you've lost something since your bits will be spread thinner in the "most important" colors.
    Correct, you do not want to do prophotoRGB 8bit anything. It is very easy to get posterization with it. Coincidentally, if you print from Lightroom and let the driver manage and do not check 16-bit output, Lightroom outputs prophotoRGB 8bits to the driver. This is rather annoying as it is very easy to get posterizaed prints this way.
    It seems that AdobeRGB has been optimized more for "important" colors and so if you have to scrunch down into an 8-bit jpeg, then its the best choice if supported - same would hold true for an 8-bit tif I would think (?)
    Correct on both counts. If there is color management and you go 8 bits adobeRGB is a good choice. This is only really true for print targets though as adobeRGB encompasses more of a typical CMYK gamut than sRGB. For display targets such as the web you will be better off always using sRGB as 99% of displays are closer to that and so you don't gain anything. Also, 80% of web browsers is still not color managed.
    On a theoretical note: I still don't understand why if image data is 12 or 14 bits and the image format uses 16 bits, why there has to be a boundary drawn around the gamut representation. But for practical purposes, maybe it doesn't really matter.
    Do realitze hat the original image in 12 to 14 bits is in linear gamma as that is how the sensor reacts to light. However formats for display are always gamma corrected for efficiency, because the human eye reacts non-linearly to light and because typical displays have a gamma powerlaw response of brightness/darkness. Lightroom internally uses a 16-bit linear space. This is more bits than the 12 or 14 bits simply to avoid aliasing errors and other numeric errors. Similarly the working space is chosen larger than the gamut cameras can capture in order to have some overhead that allows for flexibility and avoids blowing out in intermediary stages of the processing pipeline. You have to choose something and so prophotoRGB, one of the widest RGB spaces out there is used. This is explained quite well here.
    - Is there any reason not to standardize 8-bit tif or jpg files on AdobeRGB and leave sRGB for the rare cases when legacy support is more important than color integrity?
    Actually legacy issues are rampant. Even now, color management is very spotty, even in shops oriented towards professionals. Also, arguably the largest destination for digital file output, the web, is almost not color managed. sRGB remains king unfortunately. It could be so much better if everybody used Safari or Firefox, but that clearly is not the case yet.
    - And standardize 16 bit formats on the widest gamut supported by whatever you're doing with it? - ProPhoto for editing, and maybe whatever gamut is recommended by other software or hardware vendors for special purposes...
    Yes, if you go 16 bits, there is no point not doing prophotoRGB.
    Personally, all my web photos are presented through Flash, which supports AdobeRGB even if the browser proper does not. So I don't have legacy browsers to worry about myself.
    Flash only supports non-sRGB images if you have enabled it yourself. NONE of the included flash templates in Lightroom for example enable it.
    that IE was the last browser to be upgraded for colorspace support (ie9)
    AFAIK (I don't do windows, so I have not tested IE9 myself), IE 9 still is not color managed. The only thing it does is when it encounters a jpeg with a ICC profile different than sRGB is translate it to sRGB and send that to the monitor without using the monitor profile. That is not color management at all. It is rather useless and completely contrary to what Microsoft themselves said many years ago well behaved browsers should do. It is also contrary to all of Windows 7 included utilities for image display. Really weird! Wide gamut displays are becoming more and more prevalent and this is backwards. Even if IE9 does this halfassed color transform, you can still not standardize on adobeRGB as it will take years for IE versions to really switch over. Many people still use IE6 and only recently has my website's access switched over to mostly IE8. Don't hold your breath for this.
    Amazingly, in 2010, the only correctly color managed browser on windows is still Safari as Firefox doesn't support v4 icc monitor profiles and IE9 doesn't color manage at all except for translating between spaces to sRGB which is not very useful. Chrome can be made to color manage on windows apparently with a command line switch. On Macs the situation is better since Safari, Chrome (only correctly on 10.6) and Firefox (only with v2 ICC monitor profiles) all color manage. However, on mobile platforms, not a single browser color manages!

  • Photoshop not seeing export color space setting in Lightroom 4

    MY LR or PS programs are not acting as expected.
    When my Lightroom 4 is set to export to Photoshop in either the sRGB color space or the AdobeRGB color space, and Photoshop is set for the sRGB space, Photoshop gives a color mismatch error in both cases, saying the image is an AdobeRGB embedded image.  However, if the color space in PS is set for AdobeRGB, even if the export setting in Lightroom is sRGB, there is no mismatch error. 
    Apparently, PS sees every image as embedded with AdobeRGB.
    I have a Sony NEX6 camera.  I have taken pictures in the camera sRGB color space and the AdobeRGB space, which I used for this test. Since I shoot in RAW, this should not matter, so I don’t think it is the issue, and, in fact, I get the same result no matter which color space the camera is in.
    If LR export and PS color space are the same, why should there be a mismatch, and why is PS not seeing the sRGB space?  Might there be a setting in Lightroom or Photoshop that I am missing?

    howdego wrote:
    I am, however, trying to decide on the right color space to use, which is how I noticed this problem. I rarely make prints of my photos.  I make bluray movies using Proshow Producer.  I recently got a new monitor and Samsung LED HDTV, and found that my photo videos did not display right and I am trying to find out why.  I found the normal viewing settings of the TV have too much color and sharpness, so I established another group of settings for photos, which helped.  However, I am still not satisfied.
    These are two separate but related issues.
    1) It's almost impossible to get accurate Color and Luminance level rendering inside LR if you don't use a hardware monitor calibrator to adjust your computer monitor.
    2) LCD TV's use settings to "enhance" color, brightness, and contrast that is usually very, very inacuuarte. But this is what most non-photography people seem to like so TV manufacturers crank up the "default settings." I also have an older 52" Samsung TV (LN-T5265F) that I've manually adjusted for more accurate color. Try using the 'Movie' mode, which is the most accurate mode and turn the Backlight setting down. Here are the settings I use with my Samsung TV. I assume your Samsung TV's controls are similar:
    Setup Screens
    HDMI 1 (Cable Box) & Coax (Cable)
    HDMI 2 (Panasonic Blu-Ray Player)
    PICTURE - 1
    Movie
    Standard
    Dynamic
    Movie
    Standard
    Dynamic
    Contrast
    82
    82
    82
    82
    82
    82
    Brightness
    43
    45
    45
    43
    45
    45
    Sharpness
    25
    25
    35
    15
    15
    25
    Color
    42
    45
    45
    44
    45
    45
    Tint
    77 R
    77 R
    84 R
    77 R
    77 R
    84 R
    Backlight
    5
    6
    7
    5
    5
    6
    PICTURE - 2
    Color Tone
    Normal
    Normal
    Normal
    Normal
    Normal
    Normal
    Detailed Settings
    Black Adjust
    Off
    NA
    NA
    Off
    NA
    NA
    Dynamic Contrast
    Low
    NA
    NA
    Low
    NA
    NA
    Gamma
    -1
    NA
    NA
    -1
    NA
    NA
    Color Space
    Auto
    NA
    NA
    Auto
    NA
    NA
    White Balance
    R-Offset
    13
    NA
    NA
    13
    NA
    NA
    G-Offset
    15
    NA
    NA
    15
    NA
    NA
    B-Offset
    17
    NA
    NA
    17
    NA
    NA
    R-Gain
    15
    NA
    NA
    15
    NA
    NA
    G-Gain
    12
    NA
    NA
    12
    NA
    NA
    B-Gain
    17
    NA
    NA
    17
    NA
    NA
    My Color Control
    Pink
    15
    NA
    NA
    15
    NA
    NA
    Green
    15
    NA
    NA
    15
    NA
    NA
    Blue
    15
    NA
    NA
    15
    NA
    NA
    White
    15
    NA
    NA
    15
    NA
    NA
    Edge Ehnacement
    On
    NA
    NA
    On
    NA
    NA
    xvYCC
    Off
    NA
    NA
    Off
    NA
    NA
    Digital NR
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Active Color
    Off(NA)
    Off(NA)
    Off
    Off(NA)
    Off(NA)
    Off
    Dnie
    Off(NA)
    Off
    Off
    Off(NA)
    Off
    Off
    SETUP - Screen 2
    Energy Saving
    Off
    Off
    Off
    Off
    Off
    Off
    SETUP - Screen 3
    HDMI Black Level
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Low
    Film Mode
    Off(NA)
    Off(NA)
    Off(NA)
    Off(NA)
    Off(NA)
    Off(NA)
    howdego wrote:
    So it occurred to me that some colors might be wrong, or too saturated, because I am not seeing them on my monitor as they will appear on the HDTV.  I am thinking that since sRGB is my final color space, I would try to do everything in the sRGB space, including setting my monitor to sRGB (I have a Dell 2413 which supports adobeRGB too).  I was inn the process of trying this when I found the issue at hand.  Might you have any thoughts about this color space choice
    If you have a wide-gamut monitor you are better off using it in Adobe RGB mode with a monitor calibrator. But then the monitor will not look correct in non-color managed applications:
    http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
    You can circumvent this issue by using your monitor in sRGB mode, but I'd still suggest you use a hardware monitor calibrator. Either way it is imortatnt that you have a proper monitor profile assigned in Windows or OS X Color Management. The monitor manufacturer provides these, but they don't always work well with LR for numerous reasons.
    To insure the best image quality you should do all of your editing in PS using 16 bit TIFF with ProPhoto RGB profile format until you are ready to Export. For use with ProShow you can use TIFFs or JPEGs, but use sRGB color profile to avoid any color management issue. JPEGs are fine and a LR Quality higher than 80 (10 in PS) is a waste of disk space for slideshow images.
    In short you've got a lot of "variables" between the uncalibrated monitor and out-of-the-box non-adjusted TV. The former requires a good hardware calibrator aad the latter a good "eye" to adjust it.

  • Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

    Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work.  I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor.  I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
    A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
    B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
    C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
    D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
    A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself.  No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
    B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%).  When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%).  When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
    C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
    D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above.  At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
    However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use.  So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output.  Anyone else do this?  It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
    I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible.  I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

    I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
    exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
    not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
    contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
    Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
    profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
    a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
    seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
    enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
    the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
    realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
    properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
    really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
    important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
    monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
    It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
    try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
    assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
    range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
    Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
    characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
    you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
    sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
    outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
    clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
    sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
    limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
    case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
    world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
    encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
    do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
    profile.
    Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
    almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
    better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
    wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
    calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
    secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
    have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
    websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
    will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
    photographer's websites.

  • MacBeth chart - Adjust Color Space - What do I do next?

    I have watched Colin Smith's Speedgrade Tutorial: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/no-stupid-questions-with-colin-smith/introduction-to-speedgrade/
    Very well done. Thanks!
    One question remains:
    Using a Canon 5D MIII, I have shot a MacBeth chart (X-Rite Original ColorChecker Card) and was able to successfully use the “Go” button under the “Clip" tab and then sub tab "Color Space” checking “Override input format’s default color space." The adjustment is amazing and the it surprised me how well this turned out.
    However, now I have a color corrected 2-second video clip of a MacBeth chart. Where do I go from here? I have 50 clips and cannot use LOOKs to store this adjustment as it is in the color space world. Also, I seem to fail storing the actual color space in any way. For test purposes, I have made a screenshot of the Exposure, Black Level and Matrix settings and then entered the 15 numbers into another clip with great success, but this is a bit tedious to put it mildly.
    Any advice is appreciated!
    Thanks!
    CU
    Heiko

    I've done some checking on this. With the way ALL timeline-affecting things have been locked down for Direct Link work, this is NOT available in DL workflows. Very unfortunately, in my opinion ... which is sometimes very humble, but in this case, not so much!
    Please file BOTH bug AND program feature requests on this ... invite your friends to do so also! Not only is the Passport color-checker chart quite a useful production tool, there are a couple similar things for video that are even better. NONE of which are usable in a DL flow.
    Except ... that you can start in native mode creating an ircp file, do the same thing as done in that tutorial you referenced, save the results as a Look, and then apply that Look say in an second primary just above the footage primary during your normal DL workflow. Then apply any basic WB style color cast corrections to the lowest primary. It would be similar to the way a LOG style LUT/Look correction layer is used.
    Try this and see how it works.
    Neil

  • Color spaces in Lightroom and Photoshop

    I read that Lightroom uses the large ProPhoto color Space and then again, that it's gamma curve ist close to sRGB. So what is my color space when working in Lightroom? ProPhoto, or sRGb, or something else?
    And what kind of a color management workflow between Photoshop and Lightroom do you advocate? Using ProphotoRGB or sRGB as color work space in Photoshop? I used to work in AdobeRGB in Photoshop. Has this to be changed to gain maximum color consistency?
    Thanks again for any help!
    Johann M Ginther

    Hey Claude,
    if it did not have an attached profile it is almost definitely in sRGB or, more rarely, Apple RGB. Lightroom always assumes sRGB for untagged files which is typically a safe bet. Photoshop generally uses the working space for untagged images. Since you had adobeRGB there, you should get a more saturated image in photoshop then in Lightroom. The same data is simply interpreted in a different color space leading to different colors. This has nothing to do with the monitor profile therefore and my initial hunch was wrong. So for untagged images in photoshop, you should usually assign sRGB to them instead of working space.
    >As for calibration hardware we do use them here so I will use it but since the Mac was brand new out the box I assumed that it was ok...
    Unfortunately, in general the canned calibration is not very good on Macs. I find very large differences between the shipped profile and a profile generated by a calibrator. Also, Apple ships profiles that set your display's gamma to 1.8 instead of the standard 2.2. This leads to many images in webbrowsers being too low contrast. Even Apple suggests recalibrating your screen at 2.2 if you do digital photography work (it's in their Aperture help files). In this case though the difference between Lightroom and Photoshop had nothing to do with the monitor profile but was related to photoshop interpreting untagged files in its working space instead of the more likely sRGB space.

Maybe you are looking for