Image opened via OLE - missing colour profiles

Hello
I'm using OLE via MFC/C++ to edit an image in PhotoShop in Windows XP.
To edit an image I first write it into a temporary psd file and then open this file in Photoshop using something like mpItem->CreateFromFile(fileName, clsid)- where mpItem is a type of COleClientItem.
If I embed a colour profile in my temporary psd file then I find that this is not loaded with the image when I use the OLE mechanism. If I open my temporary file directly in Photoshop then it does get loaded.
I also find that there appears to be a limit on the size of image that can be opened using this OLE mechanism - around 2000 pixels in either direction.
Has anyone else come across these issues and if so, how did you solve or work around them?
Many Thanks
Des

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.

Similar Messages

Colour Profiles on exported images causing major problems

I've been exporting keynote slides as png's to use in video presentations. The problem is that the png's are saved with colour profiles, which means if I export the images from diferent macs, or even the same mac but with a different monitor attached (therefore a diferent monitor colour profile active), the images have very noticeable colour variations.
This is a major problem. I exported 1,000 slide transitions to import into Adobe Premiere, then about 500 slide updates that when imported, were in some cases darker or lighter even though I was using the same keynote and original images. I had to create a batch job in Photoshop to open, ignore the stored profile and save the images using a new default colour profile to try and get all the images consistent.
There needs to be an option in either the Keynote preferences or export options to save exported images without colour profiles.

There needs to be an option in either the Keynote preferences or export options to save exported images without colour profiles.
No, there needs to be documentation on the ICC architecture and how ICC profiles are applied. Stripping out embedded ICC profiles will colour manage the objects (images) in the system, but when the images pass outside the system they will not be colour managed any more. In this scenario, either they will have to be rendered as deviceColor by the numbers, without a definition of the colours their colourants should form, or a source ICC profile will have to be assigned by the following system/application.
I've been exporting keynote slides as png's to use in video presentations. The problem is that the png's are saved with colour profiles, which means if I export the images from diferent macs, or even the same mac but with a different monitor attached (therefore a diferent monitor colour profile active), the images have very noticeable colour variations.
I could be considered an unconditional bug in Keynote if it embedded the current monitor profile and not the system RGB colour working space profile (: Generic RGB Profile). If indeed Keynote embeds the current monitor profile, it could be considered an unconditional bug in your understanding if you start by stripping the source profiles. You should be doing a profile to profile conversion in order to get into the RGB colour working space you want in Photoshop.
Sorry, but it helps to have a basic understanding of media independent colour matching (even if the developers don't sometimes -:)).
/hh

Colour Profile Bug in CS4 32 bpc Mode?

This has been confirmed on both Mac and PC by different users
(this topic was confirmed on another list before posting here).
One may be working on an image that has a different colour profile
than set as default in colour settings. For example, colour settings
has Adobe RGB while the current document is in ProPhoto RGB. If the
ProPhoto RGB (16 bpc) file is taken to 32 bpc mode, the status message
reports that the file is in a modified linear space based on the input
profile. One may then perform USM, for example and then return to 16
bpc or 8 bpc mode.
Here is the bug: Once the ProPhoto RGB file is returned to 16 or 8
bpc, it now has the working RGB space tagged of Adobe RGB, rather than
the original ProPhoto RGB as input before 32 bpc conversion. This is
not just a tagging issue, the numbers have been converted to working
RGB rather than the input ICC that was tagged to the image prior to
entering 32 bpc mode.
ICC tagged image operations have been divorced from colour settings
since version 6, the document can reside in a space that is
independent of colour settings. I can't recall other operations that
change the files colour space and tag without user intention.
If using 32 bpc edits, to preserve the input space, one either has to
change their colour settings to match the document or convert the
document to working RGB.
So why this reversion to working RGB and not the document RGB - bug or
design feature/limitation? Did CS3 work this way, is it only my
version of CS4?
I have searched the help notes, this forum and other Adobe support docs,
however I could not find this issue documented.
Sincerely,
Stephen Marsh

Can anyone post a supporting argument for the current behaviour (design or bug). While in 32 bpc Photoshop "knows" what the original profile is (it is listed as being in a linear state), while on default conversion to lower bit depth the data is converted to working RGB, rather than the document RGB prior to conversion (if different to working RGB). Am I missing something - is this a good thing, should this be behaviour be changed?
OK, topic drift it is!
Buko/progress, it is not so much bit depth in this case, it is gamma encoding - or lack thereof. 32 bpc mode processes in linear gamma, which can have an effect on some operations for certain receptive image content (tonal moves, USM, interpolation etc).
As one example, some links to linear resampling can be found in the comments at this blog:
http://forensicphotoshop.blogspot.com/2008/11/resize-smaller-part-2.html
I prefer the 32 bpc route to linear processing rather than the alternative, which is 16 bpc and a hacked custom RGB profile set to gamma 1.0.
I don't like linear USM for output sharpening (nasty dark halo artifacts). However, for subtle capture/acquisition sharpening linear USM may be preferred for certain images. I generally sharpen with blend if sliders limiting the intensity of the light halo, which comes close to one aspect of linear sharpening (light halo reduction). This can also be achieved by blending the USM in two separate layers, set to darken and lighten blending with reduced opacity.
While on USM and gamma, there are some L* based RGB working spaces such as L*RGB or the new ECI RGB which behave the same way as Lab mode Lightness channel sharpening (when set to Luminosity blend). As the response of the Lightness channel is different to linear gamma and standard gamma encoded spaces, for some image content one may be preferred over the other as the processing space.
I would still like to explore the original topic/post before submitting a bug report. How do you think things should work?
Regards,
Stephen Marsh

Colour profiles in Photoshop CS4

I'm confused about colour profiles in CS4. I have set colour settings to sRGB and view-proof set up to sRGB as that's what my printing service work with. My Nikon D90 shoots RAW and I've set imported images to keep the sRGB colour profile from the camera. Yet in metadata I'm seeing colour mode RGB and colour profile untagged. What's wrong and how do I fix it?

Thankyou Noel. I can now save as individual photos in sRGB, but I still don't understand why they are coming through as RGB or how to bulk change that. Also, colour mode is still in RGB and I confess I don't know how that affects images or how to change it. Any advice please?
Chris

Automatically convert images to RGB Colour Profile when opened in Photoshop...

Hi there,
I have just moved over to Photoshop CS6 from Elements 10. One thing I can't work out how to do is to have PS automatically convert opened files to RGB, exactly like PSE does. Is this possible?
Many Thanks

Basically the only way to convert them is by manually changing the colour profile?
To my knowledge, yes.
I'm sure you can write a script that will do that automatically, but I don't script. You can post in the PS scripting forum. Bright and helpful people there. I'm sure someone there can set you up and walk you through how to install "a convert CMYK to working RGB upon open" script.
http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshop/photoshop_scripting

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.

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 of images are removed by Muse

Muse removes the colour profile of images when resizing or cropping them. Apparently, colour profile is preserved when image is in original size.
This is a MAJOR ISSUE not solved in more than eight months since it was reported.
Muse is useless for an artist to display his work if colours are displayed incorrectly.

Some browsers support color management and some don't. In order to have image color preserved across browsers you'll want to save your images using a sRGB color profile. If another color profile is used and the browser doesn't support color management, color shifts will occur.
If the images are already sRGB and you're still seeing a color shift, it would be helpful to have the URL for a page that demonstrates the problem. Thanks.

Can a RAW image have a colour profile straight from camera?

I am totally confused after having read a host of apparently contradictory materials. If I shoor RAW images, can they already have a particular colour profile imposed on them by the camera? Does not RAW mean 'no profile before being processed by software outside the camera'?
I have a Canon Powershot G11 camera. JPEGs are always recorded with sRGB profile in this camera. But after some e-mail correspondence with the Canon technical enquiry department, they have told me that the RAW images are also recorded with sRGB profile, i.e they already have that profile as they come out of the camera and before they are processed by the Adobe DNG Converter and ACR. Can this be right?
Thanks very much in anticipation of a simple answer!

Usually cameras don't embed profiles, rather they include a simple tag in the exif data "hidden" within the raw file. This can be used by manufacturer's software for default rendering, but has no effect upon the actual raw image data. This is also done with jpeg output, although of course the camera has rendered the image into either sRGB or Adobe1998 depending upon the camera settings.
I generally set Photoshop to ignore exif colorspace tags (File Handling within Preferences), only want to honor a profile if is actually present. Therefore I always set my camera to sRGB so that on the rare occasions I shoot in jpeg I won't have the wrong colorspace in use. Of course for ACR the camera colorspace makes no difference, since the output colorspace is chosen within ACR, no attention is paid (for raw) to the exif tag. I use ProPhoto for most work in ACR/Photoshop to avoid channel clipping.
Richard Southworth

Image Colour Profiles are not being applied

When I import images in to InDesign CC 2014 the embedded colour profiles are not being activated.
Therefore images are looking flat and a bit washed out on screen.
In order to apply the colour profile I have to right click on the image go down to Graphics and the colour settings and select the correct profile.
In the InDesign colour settings menu I have Colour management policies set to Preserve Embedded Profiles on RGB and Preserve Numbers (ignore linked Profiles) for CMYK. However changing these to other options makes no difference, the profile still need to be activated on each image.
I am working with RGB images that have the Adobe RGB 1998 profile embedded in them.
I cannot figure out why this is happening!??

Check your color settings.

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.

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!!

Do I need to set AI colour profiles for use in ID?

My previous set up:
Mac
CS2 (Illustrator, Photoshop, Bridge)
Quark XPress 7
My new set up:
PC (Win 7)
CS5 (Illustrator, Photoshop, Bridge, InDesign)
My problem:
I work for a company that prints newspapers, but my dept also does work for glossy sheetfed printers (magazines leaflets etc)
All my work is exclusively CMYK.
With my previous set up - I didn’t want to have to switch my colour profiles via Bridge as I was constantly juggling two types of jobs:
Our tabloid press - Profile - ISOnewspaper26v4 (CMYK)
Sheetfed Printers - Profile - ISO Coated V2 (Fogra 39) (CMYK)
So I set my CS2 Suite colour settings to ISO Coated V2 (Fogra 39) and set an action in Photoshop to convert jpegs / eps photos to ISOnewspaper26v4.
So my CS2 working space was set for Sheetfed glossy publications and if I wanted to set a picture to the correct profile for newsprint I just had to open the picture and hit the action that applied the ISOnewspaper26v4 profile.
Regarding Quark – I set up separate templates for each type of job:
One for Profile - ISO Coated V2 (Fogra 39) and one for - Profile - ISOnewspaper26v4.
Regarding Illustrator - I found that Quark 7 didn’t differentiate between Illustrator colour profiles, or if it did, it didn’t show up in ‘Usage’.
If I went to Quark Usage and went to ‘Profiles’ it only listed the Quark profile and any Photoshop profiles, not any Illustrator profiles.
So in Illustrator I just set colour profiles to ‘do not colour manage this document’. So that I only had to worry about changing profiles for Photoshop jpegs / eps’s.
So I had a good little system going that served me well and now my company decided to move us to PC’s and CS5; and I still have the same problem – juggling newsprint jobs and glossy magazine jobs and not wanting to have to synchronise my CS suite colour settings every time I switch between jobs...
So I was hoping to stick with my little system on PC / CS5.
So basically my question is, do I need to worry about Illustrator colour profiles if I am bringing Illustrator files into InDesign? (To clarify, my Illustrator files are always pure vector, so there is no chance of some rogue RGB jpeg sneaking through on a Illustrator file)
Im open to suggestions regarding my set up, but really would prefer not to have to keep switching my colour profiles.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

First, I wasn't suggesting that your PDFs be exported to RGB, but it is a common workflow these days to keep photos in RGB until you convert them to the correct profile during the export process. This maximizes the potential for re-purposing your documents and allows you to use the same RGB photos for different output purposes without having to do separate CMYK conversions for each destination, so long as you don't need to do any tweaking after the conversion.
And to answer your question, if the .ai files have no embedded color profile they will ALWAYS be considered to use whatever the CMYK working space is in your ID file, so the numbers will be preserved. This means that there will be slight differences in color on output on different devices (the whole point of color management, after all, is to preserve the appearance of colors by altering the numbers for the output device).
Does the vector work you get from Thinstock come with an embedded profile? Is there any color that is critical for matching, such as a corporate color (which should be spot, but that's a different discussion), or do you use the same art in both the newspaper and magazine, and does the client expect a match (which we know isn't going to happen anyway)?
If there's no embedded profile when you start, there's no way to know what the color was supposed to look like, so color management is not possible, really. You can assign a profile, but you'd be guessing. Since the correct appearance at that point is unknown continuing with out color management shouldn't present a problem. The only case where you would need to manage the vector art would be if the color APPEARANCE is critical or you need it to match across different outputs, and in that case you would need to assign a profile and allow ID to preserve the profile on import and remap the numbers, which means you would likely get rich blacks someplace. Since it's unlikely that you can get a good match going from glossy to newsprint, I probably wouldn't even try -- you wouldn't want, for example, to tag the art as newsprint, and have it print subdued on the gloss if it would look better or more correct with the other profile. Color management would be much more useful if you were going from sheetfed to web on the same stock.

Need some help with the colour profile please. Urgent! Thanks

Dear all, I need help with the colour profile of my photoshop CS6.
I've taken a photo with my Canon DSLR. When I opened the raw with ACDSee, the colour looks perfectly ok.
So I go ahead and open in photoshop. I did nothing to the photo. It still looks ok
Then I'm prompt the Embedded Profile Mismatch error. I go ahead and choose Discard the embedded profile option
And the colour started to get messed up.
And the output is a total diasater
Put the above photo side by side with the raw, the red has became crimson!!
So I tried the other option, Use the embedded profile
The whole picture turns yellowish in Photoshop's interface
And the output is just the same as the third option.
Could someone please guide me how to fix this? Thank you.

I'm prompt the Embedded Profile Mismatch error. I go ahead and choose Discard the embedded profile option
always use the embedded profile when opening tagged images in Photoshop - at that point Photoshop will convert the source colors over to your monitor space correctly
if your colors are wrong at that point either your monitor profile is off, or your source colors are not what you think they are - if other apps are displaying correctly you most likely have either a defective monitor profile or source profile issues
windows calibrate link:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Calibrate-your-display
for Photoshop to work properly, i recall you want to have "use my settings for this device" checked in Color Management> Device tab
you may want to download the PDI reference image to check your monitor and print workflows
and complete five easy steps to profile enlightenment in Photoshop
with your settings, monitor profile and source profiles sorted out it should be pretty easy to pinpoint the problem...

Change colour profile on export of jpeg for using files on windows pc

My father, who is 80, has a mac and aperture.
He is reasonable proficient using it, but as a windows user myself I'm unsure of the in's and out's of things and it always falls on me to help him when he has a problem.
He also has a windows computer, which he has a programme on for making calenders.
The problem we have is that when he saves his photo's after editing in aperture to a dvd, he puts this dvd into his windows pc and he cannot see any of the previews.
On opening up any picture in photoshop on the pc, it asks if he wants to use the embedded colour profile or change it.
I'm wondering if Aperture is exporting using a certain profile which windows cannot read? Thus doesn't show the preview.
He needs the preview to pick which pictures he wants to use on the calender.
He then stores all his pictures on the dvd.
I'm pretty sure he shoots as jpegs, not raw. Though I need to ask him.
He has several different cameras, and I think he has trouble with all of them. I'm pretty sure one is a nikon d5300 (I just googled red body nikon)
Is there a colour profile for aperture when saving as a jpeg that is compatible with windows?
It's a hundred mile round trip to visit and to then sit down and try to work it out by trial and error would take some time.
So if I can find an answer and call on the phone to tell him what to do, it'd save me a lot of time
I'm not sure what Mac he has, what OS he's using or which version of Aperture, he only recently bought it, so guess at the latest one.......... I know I'm a great help !!!!!
I can find out if needed, but thought there might be an easy fix....... I know, whenever is there an easy fix for anything!!!
Cheers,
Graham

There is no standard for a 'Preview'. It's a feature of the software that is opening a file as to how it shows those files to the user for selection. Some software will look in the file header for a thumbnail, some will use the files associated icon (if it has one) and some will just present a list of file names. I seriously doubt changing the colour profile output by Aperture will have any impact on this.
Although Aperture doesn't have a calendar feature, iPhoto does and as of the last year or so, Aperture has an option to open it's library in iPhoto. So if he has a current enough version of Aperture and iPhoto, he could avoid the issue altogether if he is happy to switch into iPhoto to make the Calendar.
If he wasn't using DVD (say a USB thumbdrive instead) he could run a utility on the PC to create icons for the files where the icon is a thumbnail of the picture, which the calendar software might then use when prompting for images to load. But the use of DVD complicates this, as it depends on the DVD drivers and file systems in use on the DVD.
Chances of resolving this remotely, remote
Andy

Image opened via OLE - missing colour profiles

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for