InDesign color management workflow help

Hello,
I recently had to create a 60 page color booklet for a University on a very tight schedule. The booklet was to be printed to press. I was not given any specifics as to the output specifics.
So, I was creating vector graphics in Illustrator as CMYK, and importing them in InDesign. And receieving e-mail with bitmat images in formats from JPG, TIFF, PDF, PNG. and I would place them directly into InDesign. If I had to do any photoshoping of a picture, I would conver the sRGB original to CMYK.
I have been reading discussion about color management workflow. But I am still not clear what I should have been doing with the roughly 100 image files sent me to be in the booklet?
Somewhere I read the way I did it was okay, as long as I let InDesign handle image conversion on the output? Is this correct? When I went to make my Package for the printer, I did get the Triangle "warning" that some images were sRGB. The PDFs looked great.
What should I have done as all these images came in? It was a crazy deadline. I can't imagine having to open every image in Photoshop -Convert to CMYK-Adjust colors and resave and import?
And what do you do if you don't know the specific output printer? I default to SWOP.
So, will InDesign, convert any incorrect (sRGB etc) images on the final output to the proper colorspace to be printed properly?
Thanks
Robin

InDesign will convert RGB to CMYK when you're exporting as PDF files IF (big IF) you choose PDF/X-1a as your PDF preset. Some of the other PDF presets (e.g., Press Quality) don't do this conversion. Their color conversion setting is No Conversion.
SWOP is a reasonable output assuming your printer didn't give you a customized CMYK profile to install with instructions to install it (most North American printers don't do this).

Similar Messages

Color managed workflow for web and camera raw

I recently calibrated my monitor and was wondering what is the preferred workflow for the web? I shoot with my camera in sRGB and my working space in Photoshop is sRGB aswell. The problem that has arised now is that the color managed colors in Photoshop are way different than the non-color managed in my web browser. Is this normal? And what I don't quite get is how a photo that has an embed sRGB profile looks the same in Firefox (that understand embed profiles) and Photoshop, but in Google Chrome (that does not recognize embed color profiles) shows the colors very differently, although the browser should understand the photo is in sRGB by default and show the same colors that are in Photoshop, right? So what happens here, because the colors are not the same? What information does Photoshop assign to the embed color profile that makes the colors so different?
Anyway, I assume the problem here seems to be my newly calibrated monitor profile. The only way I can get the same colors to my photo in Photoshop and to a photo in web is to use soft proofing set to my Monitor RGB AND save without a color profile. Is this the way to go? But here comes another problem. I shoot in RAW and use camera raw to edit my photos. Camera Raw doesn't allow soft proofing, so I'm stuck with these color managed colors that are so different from non-color managed colors I get in my browser that any color correction in Camera Raw is simply useless. Unless everyone was using color managed browsers and I could start to use fully color managed workflow, but that's not the case I suppose. So, what's the solution here?

First off, you need to be working in sRGB, or converting to sRGB when you save out files that are destined for the web. You can change the color space that Camera Raw (ACR) send your raw files to by clicking the blue text in the bottom center of the ACR window. This is probably that safest workflow for you until you get a handle on color management. If the color of your images is very important, you might consider embedding a color profile in them, which will help color managed browsers render your color properly.
If your display's color gamut is different than sRGB (many are), you'll find matching colors for non-color-managed browsers to be impossible. But consider the average display and take heart. The best you can do is correct to a standard and hope for the best.
Both the convert to sRGB and embed color profile options are in the save for web dialogue box.
More about the ACR workflow options here:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS739D7239-24A7-452b-92F9-80481C544F25.html
More about matching colors for the web:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSB3484C68-ECD2-4fa4-B7CC-447A5FE86680.html
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSD3F5E059-4F51-4b44-8566-13B854D3DF5F.html
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS0B3CD652-4675-44be-9E10-445EB83C60BA.html

Color management workflow for beginners..

I am making a movie. I have several hundred clips, shot over a period of almost 5 months. Indoors, outdoors, morning, afternoon, mid day etc. I have gained experience with my Panasonic HMC 151 over the months, and during this time used a variety of settings. I will also use still photos, and use some computer generated graphics made in Daz3D Carrara. All in all - I have a lot of material which look very different.
When layering my clips in After Effects, I want to do it right, and not paint myself into a corner.
When compiling my scenes (compositions) I also want to do it "right".
Most important to me is to get a coherent look and feel. This is the main priority. Later I might wish to change the overall color if I find out I want my movie to look more like a movie than a "video show". For example, I have shot some scenes late in May at noon, ans some scenes in the afternoon in September, and they belong to the same dialog where people talk to each others.
The target media is DVD for home TVs.
Any links to workflows and step-by-step guides (video tutors) on basic approaches on how to avoid the big mistakes is very much appreciated!
ingvarai

ingvarai:
Color Management in indeed an important aspect, but from your description, it seems that you should be concerned with "color correction" first.
Color Management is about getting reliable and predictable color rendition. It's not really about defining the "look" of your project. If your shots are not properly exposed, for example, Color Management will only make it more reliable to assure they're not properly exposed. Color correction is all about fixing those problems, or stylizing the overall look. If two takes don't intercut well, for example, then you have to correct color balance, exposure, so one matches the other.
After Effects includes a ton of effects which can be used for color correction, including Levels, Curves, Hue/Satuarion, etc. And it also includes a streamlined color correction plug-in called Color Finesse. I think the Color Finesse documentation is a good starting point, regardless of what you end up using. If you go to the folder in which After Effects is installed, and look into the "Effects" folder, you should see a folder called Synthetic Aperture. The Color Finesse manual should be inside that folder.
Also, After Effects Help has a section on Color correction and adjustments. It includes a number of links to other resources.
Mark Christiansen's book After Effects CS4 Visual Effects and Compositing Studio Techniques is very recommended.
As for the Color Management workflow, there's a specific white paper on the Adobe web site on this very subject, but I am not sure that's a good starting point. Instead, I think the AE help page on Color Management is better to get your feet wet, and then go through the white paper. Again, there are several links to other resources in the AE Help page about Color Management.

Color management problems - help please!

Hello, I'm trying hard to understand color management and to make colors consistent throughout my workflow, and I'm failing miserably despite reading and re-reading the help files. I'd REALLY appreciate some help with my specific problems, which I'm going to detail here.
WHAT I DO
I make pictures for use on the Web. I do both this by photoshopping existing photos, and by digitally drawing and painting in photoshop starting from a blank document.
HOW MY SYSTEM IS SET UP
1) I have my monitor set to sRGB, and I've calibrated the colors using the Viewsonic calibration app that came with the monitor. The resulting colors look good, to my eyes at least.
2) I've set up Photoshop to use sRGB as the working RGB colorspace, and to convert RGB images to the working colorspace
3) I've set up Photoshop's Save For Web to embed the color profile, to Convert to sRGB, and to Preview with Use Document Profile
THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING
The preview I see in the Save For Web preview screen exactly matches the source document. However, after saving for web, the color of the jpg or gif is significantly different to that of the original document.
If I change the preview mode to Monitor Color, it does show an accurate representation of the jpg or gif that will be saved, but of course as I've explained that is drastically different to the source document.
WHAT I NEED
1) I need the output jpg or gif to match the source document
2) I need to understand what's going wrong so that I can gain some insight into this process. I'm finding it very confusing
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark

Mark,
What model of viewsonic do you have? And is it a CRT or LCD?
If it's a CRT, there are some software based "eyeball" calibrators which can get you in the ballpark. If you have an older version of Photoshop you can use the Adobe Gamma utility that was included in CS2 and earlier versions.
After that, my previous advice still stands, but the best results are still going to be to bite the bullet for a colorimeter and live with the peace of mind that will give you.
If your Viewsonic is an LCD, you're much more limited, as the eyeball calibrators were never designed for LCD's. You can try them and they may be better than nothing, but no guarantees.

InDesign Color Management with BW photos

I am ready to send a book to print. It includes many high resolution BW photos. The photos are Greyscale PSDs (provided to me on disc) and are linked to the document. When I go to package it it says that CMS is on and it is in CMYK mode. There is no greyscale option, so do I A)Leave it the way it is? B) turn off the CMS? and if so, C) do I need to turn of the CMS on each photo individually or just in the document? D) none of the above?
I am on a deadline with this so any help would be fantastic. Thanks.

>Does that affect the way the images will print?
Yes, I think so, but I'm not an expert on how, exactly grayscale works in ID.
I always have color management enabled, and I use the CMYK profile for my working space that matches the press condition. I see reports that InDesign prints grayscale either darker or lighter than the same image from Photoshop, but I've never had results that I considered unacceptable. I usually use a dot gain profile of 20 or 30% when converting to grayscale, depending on if the paper will be coated or not. It's better to err, in my opinion, slightly on the light side in doing the conversions, too. Things tend to darken up on press.
If you're lucky, Gerald Singlemann may wander by with better information.
Peter

Complete color management workflow?

Quick question for the color management pros:
How do you profile your camera or scanner to close the color management loop in Aperture? As far as I can tell, there's no way in Aperture to profile a photo of a target like the GretagMacbeth Color Checker SG. There has to be a dozen plugins that do it in Photoshop-- including some amazing ACR javascripts.
The only way I can see creating a RAW camera profile for Aperture is to run the target image and my shots through ACR first to embed the corrected profile to all the images. Is anyone else trying to mange and profile devices from the camera through to the montior and printer? How does your workflow work?

Quick question for the color management pros:
How do you profile your camera or scanner to close the color management loop in Aperture? As far as I can tell, there's no way in Aperture to profile a photo of a target like the GretagMacbeth Color Checker SG. There has to be a dozen plugins that do it in Photoshop-- including some amazing ACR javascripts.
The only way I can see creating a RAW camera profile for Aperture is to run the target image and my shots through ACR first to embed the corrected profile to all the images. Is anyone else trying to mange and profile devices from the camera through to the montior and printer? How does your workflow work?

Color Management Workflow

Trying to create a CM workflow that does the following:
1. Takes an RGB Photoshop document and ensures that it is tagged with a profile
2. Converts all layers into a Smart Object
3. The name of this SO layer matches the Document RGB profile
4. Converts the parent file to destination color space (i.e. Working CMYK) without rasterization
5. Puts the destination profile on the end of the document file name
I've created an action (attached) that mostly does what I want, but a few pitfalls:
1. If the file has no background layer the first command prompts "not currently available". This is not a big deal but I'd like it to skip if the file has no background
2. I'm using "Convert to Profile" to ensure the RGB Document Profile gets embedded. The idea being if the file is currently untagged, the working space gets embedded (no change to numbers). If the working space is already embedded, no change at all. If a different profile is embedded, the user is supposed to be smart enough to set the destination to match, so no change. This step is here to address untagged documents. If the document is already tagged it needs to skip this step, but I don't know how to do that.
3. To name the SO layer properly, the user needs to be smart enough to type in the Document RGB profile. This is OK, but many people wouldn't take time to type.
4. When the parent document gets converted to the destination, the user needs to be smart enough to choose "Don't rasterize" A problem because default is rasterize
5. I don't know of a good way to get the destination (parent) profile name tacked on to the end of the document name. My lame workaround is a command that makes an empty layer sent to the back and hidden. Again the user has to be smart enough to type in the profile name. This becomes the empty layer name. Because the layer is selected, at least it shows up in the document window.
So this action works, but it is very convoluted and home spun and sort of a mess. There is much room for error. I know the solution (if there is one) must be a script.
I think it would be useful. All of the original file information is retained. The name of the RGB SO tells another user the source profile. The parent file is the destination, so the display always provides a destination preview when the file is opened. And if the destination profile was in the file name, a user (hopefully) would see it in the title in the document window.
In short when opening the document, anyone would easily the source (in the SO layer name) and destination (in the title) and have some idea of what's going on.
Some users prefer CM policies off and subsequently discard profiles. They may not even be aware they are doing it. But if the profile names are part of the document, the correct profiles could later be assigned by a knowledgeable user in the event they are discarded.
Maybe this workflow is impossible to script. If so, that's OK. Thanks for any input.

Trying to create a CM workflow that does the following:
1. Takes an RGB Photoshop document and ensures that it is tagged with a profile
2. Converts all layers into a Smart Object
3. The name of this SO layer matches the Document RGB profile
4. Converts the parent file to destination color space (i.e. Working CMYK) without rasterization
5. Puts the destination profile on the end of the document file name
I've created an action (attached) that mostly does what I want, but a few pitfalls:
1. If the file has no background layer the first command prompts "not currently available". This is not a big deal but I'd like it to skip if the file has no background
2. I'm using "Convert to Profile" to ensure the RGB Document Profile gets embedded. The idea being if the file is currently untagged, the working space gets embedded (no change to numbers). If the working space is already embedded, no change at all. If a different profile is embedded, the user is supposed to be smart enough to set the destination to match, so no change. This step is here to address untagged documents. If the document is already tagged it needs to skip this step, but I don't know how to do that.
3. To name the SO layer properly, the user needs to be smart enough to type in the Document RGB profile. This is OK, but many people wouldn't take time to type.
4. When the parent document gets converted to the destination, the user needs to be smart enough to choose "Don't rasterize" A problem because default is rasterize
5. I don't know of a good way to get the destination (parent) profile name tacked on to the end of the document name. My lame workaround is a command that makes an empty layer sent to the back and hidden. Again the user has to be smart enough to type in the profile name. This becomes the empty layer name. Because the layer is selected, at least it shows up in the document window.
So this action works, but it is very convoluted and home spun and sort of a mess. There is much room for error. I know the solution (if there is one) must be a script.
I think it would be useful. All of the original file information is retained. The name of the RGB SO tells another user the source profile. The parent file is the destination, so the display always provides a destination preview when the file is opened. And if the destination profile was in the file name, a user (hopefully) would see it in the title in the document window.
In short when opening the document, anyone would easily the source (in the SO layer name) and destination (in the title) and have some idea of what's going on.
Some users prefer CM policies off and subsequently discard profiles. They may not even be aware they are doing it. But if the profile names are part of the document, the correct profiles could later be assigned by a knowledgeable user in the event they are discarded.
Maybe this workflow is impossible to script. If so, that's OK. Thanks for any input.

Early and late binding workflows in ICC based color management

Hi all!
I'm a graphic design student at Reading Uni in the UK, and I'm writing my BA dissertation on early and late binding workflows in ICC based color management for print production. I'm intending to write to a graphic designer audience from a designer's point of view. Please do comment here if you have anything to say on this topic, or you can point me to the right direction. I'm also looking for studios where I could conduct my case studies who employ early, medium or late binding workflows.
Thank you.

Will your paper have a title like "Color Management is Fun and Easy" or "The Fiasco of Color Management"?
Notice that in the past week you and I are the only posts on this forum! This is the Color Management forum on Adobe's website. Shouldn't it be really busy?
It appears, that even after nearly ten years I can't remember when color management first began to appear in prepress software), the industry has not embraced color management.
The promise of color management since I can remember was that we could make color documents and not need to know how they would be printed. In other words a late binding workflow; that latest possible, just before making the plates or screens or engravings, etc. After forty hours of reading on the net and testing I am almost positive this is impossible if Illustrator is in the workflow.
Illustrator documents must be either RGB or CMYK not both. So if there are any colors that need to be preserved as CMYK (like 100 K black) you must work in CMYK meaning a mid binding color management workflow. The only thing I can think of is to find, or make, the widest gamut CMYK profile so that the fewest colors are hacked off.
But really how can this all be so messed up? What good reason could Adobe have for doing this? (I can think of several but they all contridict themselves.)
I preped some files the other day that were going to a printer I wasn't familiar with; one of the premium houses here in my area. I called them and asked how they wanted the files sent to them. I was hoping they had profiles for me or would spec some kind of PDF/x document that they would handle. No they wanted the source files and when I asked do you want the images in RGB then said, "No." So I asked which profile did they want me to use to convert to CMYK and the answer was, "What do you mean?" I said which CMYK do you want? The answer was, "The one everybody uses." I used SWOP and sighed.
IF I'M WRONG I would love to hear about it.
Good luck

Accurate proof with inaccurate monitor? [color management question]

At the risk of sounding really dumb, here goes:
I have never had a true color managed workflow despite dabbling in it and even delving into custom profiling.
I don't want to shut the windows in my upstairs office and be dependent on unnatural light sources. I'm content to design knowing that what's on my monitor is not accurate.
But I do want to be able to print my own inkjet proofs and know that what I see on paper is at least 90% accurate to what I'll get off press. And I want to try my best to provide clients with PDF proofs that come as close as possible to press. (This last bit's probably a pipe dream given that the clients don't have calibrated monitors, but perhaps Acrobat 9's new Overprint Preview default settings will help somewhat?)
Is this realistic? Everything I know about color management starts with monitor calibration and I'm reluctant to take that step for fear of working in a cave-like environment.
Would love to hear thoughts from the community.

I'm still using my Sony Artisan, and dreading the day it fails to calibrate, but I'm definitely in the minority now. Adobe Gamma is useless for LCDs, and no longer ships, but the modern hardwares solutions are all supposed to be compatible. I suspect you'll get good results with a good monitor.
As far as being worthwhile, absolutely. My office uses North light and daylight balanced fluorescent lighting, so there isn't a harsh color change through the day. Things are probably most accurate at the time of day when the calibration was last done, but they are definitely better any time than they would be without it.
Peter

Dual-monitor color management?

So I've got a dual-monitor setup running OS 10.7 on a Mac Pro, and color management in Bridge CS5.1 on my second screen is a mess. Both monitors have been individually calibrated with a Pantone Huey Pro (not perfect, but generally pretty consistent across screens).
Viewing an image in Bridge on my first screen, I have no problem. But the same image, when viewed on my second screen, appears heavily oversaturated. When I open the image in Photoshop or Preview, the color is accurate and is consistent across both screens. The below image illustrates the problem: the colors shown correctly in Photoshop (foreground) and incorrectly in Bridge (background). The Creative Suite color settings in Bridge show the settings as "synchronized" with the "North American General Purpose 2" default.
I'm sort of out of my depth here when it comes to color management. Do I have something set wrong? Is this a Lion-related bug? Any help would be appreciated.

The way I have it set up is this: I have two synchronized windows, one on each of my two displays. In one I have a content panel, metadata, collections, etc. In the second window I just have a preview panel, supplying me with a full-screen (almost) preview of any thumbnail I select from the content panel in the other window.
Content (assuming thumbnails as well) panel preview on one display and the Preview panel preview on the other display are both being generated by one application and that is Bridge. Like I said above, I don't think, in fact I'm almost certain this is impossible for Bridge to pull off because of the dual matrices (mathematical formulas) written into each custom display profile that occupy the same video chip to calculate and control hue/saturation appearance in color managed images. Think of the complexity involved. Now Adobe is known for creating workflow miracles with their programming but I doubt they'ld be able to pull that off with Bridge.
Photoshop can pull this off having one image on one display and dragging to the other where it makes the adjustment on the fly. I've seen the quick shift that occurs doing this. But I don't think Bridge can do this because of it's caching structure. I hope an Adobe employee chimes in to correct me.
Now this dovetails into your mentioning forcing a display into the sRGB space during calibration and profiling of each display. This is not what happens doing a hardware calibration. I'm assuming you pick your target Luminance (120 cd/m2 +/-), Gamma (2.2. gamma-usually native) and Color Temp (6500K). It doesn't matter if you did anyway, but what the hardware calibrator does is measure each display's RGB colorant and density range and write the data into the final profile that allows applications like Colorsync Utility to display a 3D gamut model and color managed applications like Photoshop to show colors as intended.
Your display may be close to sRGB but never exact to it because sRGB is a synthetic (made up) color space. Your display has physical anomalies that must be measured and written into the profile to properly display the intended appearance of color referencing the CIELAB color space which is based on human vision. Everything about computerized color in a color managed workflow is based on mapping color to display properly according to gamut size. A computer is a dumb machine and has to be told everything using math. You actually do have to draw it a map to follow.
Bridge's Preview pane looking different may be either referencing the other display profile or is stuck referencing the other and what's happening is the equivalent of Assigning one of the display profiles to the Preview like you can do to an image in Photoshop. Try it. Take your image and convert to one of your display profiles and assign the other display profile to it. Check if you see a slight shift. If Bridge's main Preview pane is stuck showing pixels mapped to (synthetic) sRGB then the same assigning of the display profile effect takes place.
And/or the thumbnails aren't color managed and the Preview pane is and maybe a bit of the above is compounding things. If you aren't confused now can you imagine trying to mathematically write the thumbnail previews on one display and the main Preview on the other both controlled by one application on top of caching and managing a large image database?
Keep the Preview pane and Content pane on one display. Edit your images in Photoshop/ACR/Lightroom on the primary display.
The Color Settings where you select North American Prepress...Web...General Purpose...etc. only applies to how images are handled and previewed that don't have an embedded profile. Are your jpeg images embedded with a profile? If so then this is not the issue. This doesn't apply to Raw captures because their previews are generated by the default Adobe Camera Raw settings.
Omke, no more Version Cue? That's welcome news!

Issue with Color Management and Print Module

The is a repost per request from a comment on Julieanne Kost's blog...
Having sticky output settings can be useful but now that LR has a color managed workflow, it introduces some problems. For example, if a Proof Copy is created and edited to a particular profile, then that copy is taken into the Print Module, if the output profile that has “stuck” from the previous job does not match you have a problem. It would be nice if the behavior for proof copies would be to automatically match the editing profile or at least warn of a mismatch. And while it is nice to be able to create a Saved Print with all the output parameters, it would be helpful to be able to create saved sets of “Print Job” settings assuming that they will be consistent for a particular printer/ink/paper combination (and whatever “Print Adjustment” you have found to your liking) then easily applied to any image being prepared for output. Perhaps a “save setting” selection under the “Print to:” menu.

So what you propose is the templates are proof copy sensitive and if they are setup for profile A but the proof copy describes profile B, then everything but the template defined profile is honored? I could get behind that idea (but what if one selects multiple VC’s with differing profiles and goes into Print?).
That's pretty much it. It does get complicated quickly as you look at multiple VCs or (and I think we need to start making the distinction between proof copies and ordinary virtual copies) if you bring a mixture of PCs and VCs into the print module. I would suggest that the default behavior be to set output profile of the PC as defined in the PC and retain the "sticky" behavior for ordinary VCs.
I also think that having the ability to save a "Print Copy" may change what we need out of the templates and perhaps their overall function should be re-evaluated.
The VC name should show you the profile used for soft proofing if you have the overlay on. That helps too. My concern are those who work with these VC’s and the text overlay is off.
I'm not getting that behavior. The only place the copy name shows up in the print module is in the filmstrip header. Maybe I have a preference set wrong somewhere... Still, I'd rather the software take care of making the match rather than having to double check to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the profile somehow (i.e. clicking on a template just to see how it would look on another size paper).

How to Enable Color Management? (DV Compression Is Lightening Gamma)

This problem has plagued me with both After Effects and Premiere. I have a project with a number of .mpeg video files (I know MPEG is a bad file choice, but it's not causing the problem--I tested this with uncompressed media also). In AE, I have a darkly lit scene with gamma turned down to produce pure blacks in the shadowy areas. When I render as DV, Windows Media, or QuickTime and play the resulting file in Windows Media Player or Media Player Classic, the file has rather ugly dark grays where pure blacks should be. I read the article on color management and thought I had found the problem, but the "Use Display Color Management" option is grayed out and I've been unable to re-enable it.
Also, I don't know if this is of any major value, but the DV and Windows Media file versions look the same in Windows Media Player as they do in Media Player Classic. QuickTime files look slightly better in Classic than in the default QT player. This issue is especially confusing since the article only acknowledged that this can happen with QuickTime, whereas I'm having this problem with all formats except uncompressed. Thanks!

> How do I enable display color management?
Have you enabled color management for the project (i.e., selected a working color space for the project)? If not, please read
"Choose a working color space and enable color management" for an explanation of how to enable color management for a project.
"Enable or disable display color management" contains information on managing colors using your monitor's color profile.
You said that you read "the article on color management", by which I presume that you mean the "Color Management Workflow" white paper on the Adobe Design Center website. That paper links to the
"Color management" section of After Effects CS3 Help on the Web and presumes that you'll consult that document for some of the basic underlying concepts and detailed procedures.
> And I guess it's a redundant question, but are the answers to this issue the same for Premiere as for AE?
Premiere Pro does not do color management.

Newbie color management question

hi folks
using cs4. just finished a cmyk job on a new press. colors on the final print job were pretty faithful to what i saw on my monitor when doing the design, with a few exceptions that i'd like to tweak if possible. i'm new to color management, so looking for some pointers.
according to my research, the right thing to do is to request a colorsync or icm or icc profile from my press. i did...but my press was slightly confused and sent me a bunch of .icc files and i don't know which one to load. the press people are great people and it's a good press, but i got the feeling that they weren't asked this question a lot. so i ended up using u.s. web coated (swop) v2 as a profile, which is what they ultimately recommended.
so if i can't get an icc profile from my press, the other approach according to my research is to wing it and adjust the color profile on my own so that what i see on my monitor matches the printed output. in other words, i take the printed output and hold it up to my screen and manually adjust the color profile settings. i believe this is done in photoshop under edit-->assign profile and/or edit-->color settings, and then sync the color management for all applications using the bridge. or maybe this can be done in indesign? i'm asking the question on this forum because of the great responses i've gotten here.
i don't want to screw things up and i'm a newbie with this, so... any advice out there? my basic situation is that the colors were reasonably faithful but there was a very curious thing where a c=0,m=0,y=35,k=15 color looked very green on the printed page even though it was a mellow looking yellow on my monitor. i want to try to adjust that.
thanks.........

Do you have a colorimeter and monitor profiling software? That's the place to start any color managed workflow. You also need a reasonably good monitor that CAN be calibrated. If the monitor isn't accurately showing you the colors, then nothing you do is going to matter.
Matching the monitor to the print is an old technique that works only when you have a closed loop where all work is output on the same press under the same conditions. The purpose of using device independent editing spaces, such as Adobe RGB, is that in theory any properly calibrated monitor will display the image the same, and you can convert to any known output space at the time of output.
Terms like mellow looking yellow are pretty subjective, so I don't know what you were expecting, but I wouldn't expect 35y, 15k to be very bright, nor very yellow. While I wouldn't describe the color as green on my monitor, it certainly doesn't resemble a banana, and next to a brighter yellow one might call it greenish by comparison. It's really a light yellowish gray,I think.
I'm putting up a comparison here to see what it looks like, but colors won't be accurate in a browser.

SRGB vs no Color Management question

I have two workflows for Photoshop that produce the exact same results and I want to know which one to use, but most importantly why?
WORKFLOW 1: NO COLOR MANAGEMENT
1. Photoshop Color Settings is set to "Monitor Color" which tells the PSD to not use color management.
2. I check with Proof Colors (View > Proof Colors), having Monitor RGB selected (View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB), and of course nothing changes.
3. I Save for Web and nothing changes (If I select "convert to sRGB" in the Save for Web dialog the colors wash out so I NEVER check this).
4. Export the image.
WORKFLOW 2: sRGB
1. Photoshop Color Settings is set to "North America General Purpose 2" which tells the PSD to use sRGB.
2. I check with Proof Colors (View > Proof Colors), having Monitor RGB selected (View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB), and the colors change a good bit.
3. I Save for Web and it matches what Proof Colors shows me (If I select "convert to sRGB" in the Save for Web dialog nothing changes).
4. Export the image.
Both of these yeild the exact same image. The technical difference is that the second image has sRGB embedded? From a workflow difference I perfer the first one since I never have to check if Proof Colors is selected, the image looks the same no mater what. In the second workflow I have to always check if Proof Colors is selected otherwise what I see in photoshop doesn't look the same as the exported image.
PLEASE help me to understand, that while both of these workflows yeild the exact same image, why the second one is better because I feel like the first one is not.
P.S. Majority of the work I do is for the screen (web or application UI) so I'm not to worried about print work but wouldn't mind any pointers in relation to this situation.

It's about 1:30 AM in my part of the world I need to get some rest, so I'll have to be brief.
I've never seen so many misconceptions crammed into a single post as you've managed to get in your last one.
I'll try to get at least the most glaring ones.
eddit wrote:
1. I do understand that of the millions on monitors there are none that match, and the exact reds, greens, and blues that I see on my screen differ from other screens (i have a number of computers in my home and am very aware of this).
Good, but that's not the point.
eddit wrote:
I also know that there is a huge gamma shift from PC to Mac as I use to be a PC users and am now on a Mac.
Only if the Mac user is still living in the stone age. Macs should be calibrated to gamma 2.2, just like a PeeCee. The old gamma 1.8 standard is a relic left over from the day of Apple monochrome monitors and LaserWriter b&w printers. Even Apple recommends 2.2.
eddit wrote:
why would I work with a psd that is color managed, if it will all just get dumped by the browser anyways?
Because presumably you want to have a clue as to what your image looks like and what it might look like to others.
This is totally independent from whether you embed a profile or not. Different issue.
eddit wrote:
2. I'm not talking about EMBEDDING profiles into any of the images that I Save For Web.
Neither am I.
eddit wrote:
3. I am far more interested in color consistency rather than color accuracy as G Ballard points out in his tutorials.
The only way to achieve consistency is through a color managed workflow. That's what Color Management is all about, consistency.
eddit wrote:
From what G Ballard says, in a web browser, Macs apply the monitor profile and Windows applies sRGB.
Good grief! That is so wrong or badly phrased that I feel bad even quoting it! That statement is garbage/rubbish.
Only the bloody Slowfari (Apple's Safari) throws monitor profile at untagged files, i.e. files with no embedded color profile. No other browser does that. Period. If the file is tagged, Safari will honor the embedded profile.
Firefox 3.9 (both Mac and Windows) correctly assumes sRGB for untagged files (files without an embedded color profile) with color management enabled in the guts of Firefox and/or even with color management disabled.
All other browsers on this planet, Mac and Windoze, are not color managed and assume sRGB for all files, with or without an embedded profile.
The reason the files look very similar to you is that you are dealing with the lowest common denominator (sRGB, where the s stands for sh¡t, as we know now), and probably your color monitor is pretty close to that common denominator.
If you happened to have an expensive truly wide-gamut monitor, your untagged files created in your monitor profile as working space would look like cr@p to you.
Get this through your head: you cannot turn off color mangement in Photoshop, no matter what you do, the application won't let you. You're just messing up with color management the way you work, you are not "turning it off" as you seem to think.

Color Management Issues Solved in LR 1.1?

Long tempted to switch from Elements 5.0 to LR (or to integrate the two), I have held off because I've read on this forum dozens, probably hundreds, of complaints about LR 1.0 and color management. Some of these questions were clearly from ignorance, I know (such as not understanding the difference between the color space used by monitors and that used by printers). But many other were from sophisticated users all of whom began their comments or questions with "Works perfectly in Photoshop, but in LR ..." See, for example, http://adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc41850/39 , which describes difficulty in getting LR to produce acceptable prints. To my mind, LR 1.0 had color management problems even if the highest end users managed to work around them. I don't want to buy into problems, not being a sophisticated user yet myself. So here is my queston: Does LR 1.1 solve these problems? That is, does LR 1.1 work as easily, or almost as easily, as Photoshop (say with the HP b9180, which has a PS plugin)? Thanks in advance.

The problem is that lightroom is somehow throwing the default profile that is set in colorsync into the mix. Which is something that Photoshop is not doing. So any printer profiles built by printing a target with PS is not going to be accurate when printed through Lightroom unless the default profile for you printer is Generic RGB Profile or something close.
Here is what I have posted elsewhere about my discovery of this issue.
I discovered something today that just might be the answer to the color printing problems from Lightroom.
First of all, all prints from PS and Lightroom was done with the same color management workflow with the profiles set in the application and color management turned off in the printer driver. This was to a Canon iPF9000.
Started when I tried to print from a new MacPro with Lightroom. Colors were not right.
Went to the G5 and printed from lightroom same file same settings same profile, color was correct.
Printed same file same setting same profile from PS on the MacPro. Color was correct.
So started printing and saving as PDF from the print dialog. Open the PDF files in Acrobat and checking embedded profile with Pitstop.
Here are the results.
Lightroom on Macpro: iPF9000 Paper profile. This was much darker with way to much yellow.
Photoshop of Macpro: Generic RGB
Lightroom on G5: sRGB v1.20 (Canon)
I had uninstall the sRGB v1.20 (Canon) profile from the colorsync folder on the MacPro. Added sRGB v1.20 (Canon) back in and guess what. sRGB v1.20 (Canon) in the PDF now generated from Lightroom. Print to the printer from Lightroom on the MacPro and it now printed correct.
Now got to thinking were does Lightroom get this (sRGB v1.20 (Canon) profile from. So checked in the Colorsync utility to see what the default profile for the iPF9000 is and sure enough it was sRGB v1.20 (Canon). Ok so what happens if I change the default profile in the Colorsync utility to Adobe RGB. Now guess what the Lightroom generated PDF now shows Adobe RGB as the embedded profile.
PS printed to PDF showed Generic RGB profile no matter what I set as the default profile in the Colorsync Utility.
Clearly Lightroom behaves differently when printing when a different default profile is selected for a printer. On Windows this could be the same as one can set in the printer properties (at least for the iPF9000) the default profile to automatic or set a different default profile manually.
This raises an interesting question as to what is really going on with print files set to a printer. Especially printers with much larger gamuts than sRGB.
Could this be the source of the strange Lightroom printing problems?
I do know when I have tried to make a profile from a printed target in LR I could not get accurate color. But the profile generated for a target printed in PS works fine in LR.

InDesign color management workflow help

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for