Is accurate colour possible in QT?

I have some scanned slides which have lovingly been restored in Photoshop. Eventually I hope to transfer them to Bluray format. As an initial test of the process, I jumped into QT Pro, went to File > Open Image Sequence, selected one image, and after QT after me asking how many frames per second I wanted, the image appeared. At the same time I opened the image in PS and put it next to the QT image: Fine. They look identical. I just love Apple and its WYSIWYG approach. This is going to be easy.
Then I exported as a QT movie, H.264 format, best quality everything – and the image came out with altered contrast. So I tried various settings in the Filter > Color Sync window but to no avail. Finally, I went back to PS, converted the image to sRGB colour space, set up my monitor and QT so that every color space was the same sRGB, but still the images look different.
Q1: Does QT have the capability to generate movies from stills, with the stills retaining the same look as in PS?
Q2: If the answer to Q1 is yes, what colour settings should I use? If the answer is no:
Q3: Does the problem lie with QT or H.264?
Q4: Is there any software that can generate H.264 movies that retain the look of stills?
In effect, if PS had an Export (identical) as H.264 option, I'd be a happy movie maker.
Thanks in advance for any comments.
I just came across this impressive post: https://discussions.apple.com/message/10612852#10612852. It's not looking good. Has this problem been fixed with later versions of QT or OSX? Whatever happened to WYSIWYG?
Message was edited by: Guy Burns

Yes just hold click and hold on the swatch and drag the cursor off the swatch while holding down.

Similar Messages

Achieving accurate colour prints

Hi,
I am using Ps CS5.1, Canon printer Pixma MP988 & a Mac OS X10.9.1.
In the last couple of weeks I no longer am getting correct pri ntouts, I susspect something related to colour profiling has recently changed (I must have done it myself but not aware of what it is that I've done to change it) & now there is a serious shift in colours when I make prints. I have checked the printer it is working fine. my computer sreen is calibrated.
Any suggestions hiw to correct it so I can get accurate colour print outs?
Many thanks.
Anat

The way I understand it, the Adobe RGB in the Print module applies only to the previews, and draft printing, but I may be wrong.
See Lightroom Help | Color management. Under "How Lightroom manages color" it says:
"Lightroom uses Adobe RGB:
- for previews in the Library, Map, Book, Slideshow, Print, and Web modules
- when printing in Draft mode"
In another help document Lightroom Help | Print job options and settings it says:
"To send the image data to the printer driver without first converting the image according to a profile, choose Managed By Printer."
So, I assume LR is sending the image in its internal color space, but then again it is just my interpretation, although it is compatible with what happens, i.e. the "color numbers" from a big color space are sent to a smaller color space, without conversion, and the colors get washed out. It is much the same as when an Adobe RGB encoded image is viewed on non-color managed program.
As you do not have specific profile for your printer and get good results using Adobe RGB you may want to try to cheat a little.
Try this: in the Color Management tab of the Print module, instead of selecting "Managed by printer" select "Other..." and you will see a list of the available profiles on your computer (eventually ticking "Include display profiles"). There, choose Adobe RGB.
In any case, I'm convinced this is NOT the correct approach.

Accurate colour profile for Canon 40D?

Hi all,
I have an Canon 40D but unfortunately my colour checker is not compatible with the new DNG Profile Editor (it's a PerfectPix Natural).
Has anyone here made a profile for the 40D using the Gretag colour checker that they'd be happy to share with me? I realise that your 40D may not replicate colours in exactly the same way as my camera, however it's got to be closer than any of my other profile options at the moment.
Thanks in advance,
James
PS... I hope this request isn't inappopriate, the user to user forum for Camera Raw seemed like the best place.

Hi David/Eric,
I understand what you mean about the contrast, however I am comfortable that my images are exposed correctly on the whole. I guess it's just very hard to quantify, and very hard to prove, where my images are not "right" colour wise.
I also realise that white balance plays a major role in this type of subjective comparison... The issue I'm finding is that when I am flicking between profiles for an image there are times I just can't find anything that's right.
Maybe the biggest issue, at least in part, is perception. When analyzing an example image I've seen the following behaviour for each profile:
- Camera Standard is probably best, but while on this example it's okay, in some images it's over-saturated.
- Adobe Standard is close, probably slightly too green.
- ACR 4.4 is up there too, best in some cases but can have issues with skin tones.
- Camera Faithful is next on the list but tends to look flat and lifeless (even though no change other than profile).
- Camera Portrait makes faces too pink and skies too blue. In general it seems to over-saturate.
- Camera Landscape makes faces look pretty good, but skies and landscapes are WAY over saturated.
- Camera Neutral looks relatively good colour wise but has no contrast and looks under saturated.
The problem is, in this one example they've behaved in a certain way. In another example (even one where I've manually white balanced) they'll behave differently... suddenly Camera Standard will look terrible and ACR4.4 will look the best... or Adobe Standard.
I guess the issue is I'm just not confident that LR is reproducing the colours that the camera saw... but only because I don't think the profile is right. Once I know that the profile is right (and whether I'm being silly or not, I would be satisfied that Joe Blog's 40D is going to be almost identical to my 40D) then I'll know that the faces look a little red because I've got my white balance wrong. Right now there are three that are "close" to what I saw, but I'm not confident that any of them are spot on.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not attempting to be difficult, to be honest I figured that the creation of the Profile Editor would lead to a proliferation of downloadable camera profiles that were supposedly "colourmetrically accurate" for each camera... maybe I'm just a little quick on the bandwagon.
Cheers,
James
PS. I realise that colour gamut of the monitor plays into this also, but I am assuming that if I can SEE that the colours are too saturated then I'm not exceeding the gamut... I guess it's possible that my "washed out" profile Camera Faithful is exceeding the gamut and subsequently doesn't look very good?

Colour (possibly profile) issues with certain objects

Hi,
I'm trying to put together my folio but have run into a frustrating issue.
As the file is a web PDF, it's obviously RGB (sRGB to be specific). All of my swatches have RGB values, all of my links have embedded Adobe RGB (1998) or sRGB profiles.
The main issue is, a link on one page (PNG-24) shows correct colours, while on another it seems to be bluer in shadow tones. I found that what's causing it is any of my other objects that have blending modes activated:
Two different rectangles with RGB swatches, Multiply, 62% Transparency
Two identical JPG textures. One on background layer and one a top layer which is set to Color Burn
Once all of these are removed, the effected object returns to its correct tones, but if even one of the above objects returns anywhere to the spread, the colour goes off again. Similarly, if any of these objects are taken to another page, other swatches used (say a solid rectangle) are effected.
It's driving me insane and I've tried everything I know. Any ideas? I have a feeling this may have something to do with blending modes, but I just don't understand why it would.

Yep, that was it
I knew it had to be something along those lines, but I honestly expected that sort of thing to be within Color Settings; maybe I should have just looked two menu items up
Thanks for the help. Seems it's getting harder and harder to find what you're looking for on Google these days when all you have is vague keywords... Yay SEO (sarcasm)

Accurate colours in Acrobat

I have been asked by Adobe support to start a thread regarding my issues.
It seems to be an ongoing issue with Acrobat which only occurs on hardware calibrated monitors on OS versions 10.7+
Since upgrading our operating system from 10.6.8 to 10.9 Acrobat no longer displays the correct colours. We are using Acrobat version 10.1.13.
All colour settings are sync'd across apps and Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop are correct and match, but Acrobat does not. The output intent is correct, but the colours displayed are not. They are muted and look to default to a standard setting.
This is an outstanding issue, and there are a number of forum posts with a full explanation, this one being the most in depth (and 2 years old):
Color issues in Mountain Lion with Acrobat Pro
It would be great if I am missing a very simple solution!
This is an example from the previous forum post which illustrates the issue.
This is definitely not fixed. At first glance it looks good, but its not.
Have a look at Cyan for example (only a wide gamut monitor will show this right).
Before and after 10.1.9 upgrade
Im seeing this on ISO 12646 certified EIZO ColorEdge CG242W.

You will see the fix with the version of Acrobat recently announced and that will shipping very soon. We have confirmed the fix with some of our prerelease users. The problem was pretty much isolated to monitors that were highly calibrated and not sRGB (such as monitors that support the full AdobeRGB gamut).
- Dov

Possible solution for problems printing with ICC profiles - esp. R2400

(N.B. This is long because I've decided to go in to details about the background of the problem etc.. Also note that whilst my experience is with the Epson R2400, anyone with problems printing using ICC profiles in Aperture may find this post helpful, as will be explained further down the post.)
Ok, here's the situation. I've been an Aperture user for over a year, and an R2400 owner for half a year. In that time I have done a huge amount of experimenting, but I've never managed to get Aperture to work perfectly with Epson's 'premium' R2400 ICC profiles - the ones you can download from their site which are better than the ones provided 'in the box'. This hasn't been too big a deal because, in fact, the R2400 does a rather good job just set to 'System Managed' in Aperture and 'Epson Vivid' with a gamma of 1.8 in the printer driver. Nevertheless, it really annoyed me that something that should work wasn't, which is why I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what's going on. Having said that, I have come across a method which will give you pretty good prints out of your Epson R2400 using the premium profiles in Aperture - it's not perfect, but it's the best you're going to get if you want to use those profiles in Aperture. I understand the words 'it's not perfect' aren't what photography experts would probably want to hear, however, I have seen a few anguished posts from R2400 owners in here before, so I think some people may find it useful.
The whole reason why Aperture is hopeless at using the R2400's premium profiles is because - unusually - their default rendering intent is set to 'relative colorimetric' rather than 'perceptual'. You might say 'but that's good - it means you get more accurate colours!', and if you do, you're right... however, there's a snag. To get an image to reproduce well using Epson's premium profiles and relative colorimetric rendering, you really need to use black point compensation. This is where the trouble lies: Aperture's black point compensation is diabolical to the point of being unusable when used with relative colorimetric rendering - I feel I need to be awarded compensation every time I've ever tempted to use the setting. So because BPC in Aperture is unusable, that effectively makes the premium profiles unusable too, because Aperture always uses the default rendering intent specified in the profile.
The solution? Use perceptual rendering instead. Ok, so you can't change the rendering intent in Aperture, which makes that sound a tad difficult. However, as I said in the above paragraph, Aperture always obeys the default rendering intent specified in the profile... so you can see where we're going with this: we need to change the ICC profiles' default rendering intent from 'relative colorimetric' to 'perceptual'. I did some digging around and found one or two expensive pieces of software that could do that... but then I found that, lo and behold, the Mac OS has a command-line utility which can do the job for us, for precisely £0.00. It's called SIPS or 'Scriptable Image Processing System', and you can find out some information about it here: http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2035.html#TNTAG58 For those who don't like reading technical jargon however, here's what you need to do to convert a profile's rendering intent. First go to terminal, then type in the following command:
sips -s renderingIntent perceptual
Do not press 'enter' yet. Instead, add a space after 'perceptual', find the ICC profile you want to modify, and click and drag it into the terminal window. You should then find that your command looks something like this:
sips -s renderingIntent perceptual /Users/yourname/folder/RandomProfile.ICC
At which point you can then press 'enter', and the command will execute, giving you an ICC profile which will now make Aperture use perceptual rendering.
There is just one further thing to be aware of after doing this: for some crazy reason, you then need to turn on BPC in Aperture for the prints to come out as good as possible. Black point compensation shouldn't make any difference when using perceptual rendering as the idea of perceptual is that it takes account of things like that anyway, however, in Aperture BPC does make a difference, so remember to turn it on to get a half decent print. In general, I find that prints made using this setup come out pretty well; they almost perfectly match prints made using the profiles with a perceptual intent in Photoshop Elements, except for the fact that Aperture blocks up the shadows a bit more than Photoshop. However, if you can live with that, you might find this is quite a workable solution.
Now, I said near the beginning of this post that all the above can apply to other printers too. Most printer profiles have 'perceptual' set as their default rendering intent, in which case everything I've just said won't be of much help. However, If you are reading this because you're having problems with ICC profiles in Aperture, but you don't use an Epson R2400, find your problematic ICC profile, double-click on it, and take a look at the window that opens: specifically, at the 'Rendering Intent' the window mentions. If it doesn't say 'Perceptual' then it may well be worth trying the steps I've outlined in this post to set it to perceptual, to see if doing so produces an improvement when using the profile in Aperture.
Finally, just one note of caution: if you decide to try out the steps I've detailed above on a paid-for custom-made profile, please back your profile up before messing with it. I haven't experienced any problems when using SIPS to change a profile's rendering intent, but I obviously can't guarantee that it won't do something weird and corrupt your expensive custom-made profile.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask, although (contrary to any impression I may give) I am not a colour-management expert; I'm just someone who doesn't give up when they have a problem that should be solvable.
Thomas
Mac Pro 2.0GHz with 30" ACD; 15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz Mac OS X (10.4.10)

Thomas
Wow - thanks for such a comprehensive post.
I have Aperture and a 2400 so this information is exceptionally useful to me.
Again - thanks for caring and sharing
Brian

How to get the best colour representation on screen

Hi there,
I am trying to get my LCD to most accurately represent colours from my Pantone swatch book. I have a Huey Pro calibration tool to assist in the LCD calibration.
So, I've calibrated the display as best as I could. It's not a top of the line LCD and the Huey isn't the top of the line colourimeter so I understand that I won't get things absolutely perfect.
I'm starting with the basics: trying to match the C M Y & K from the swatch book. Figure that's a good place to begin. I'd like to see RGB and CMYK values look as accurate as possible on my display. If I can figure that out, then I guess it's time to understand how to match the Pantone values and the Lab settings and all that jazz.
My PS Colour Settings are North America General Purpose 2
RGB: sRGB IEC61966-2.1
CMYK: US Web Coated (SWOP) v2
Is there anything else I can be doing to get a better on-screen representation?
Is this Holy Grail even attainable with my modest setup?
I'd really value your advice and opinions!
Thanks!

Humm could be one of two things...
If the Display Resolution is off, go to: Apple > System Preferences > Displays > select the Display tab and choose the highest Scaled Resolution in the list.
If just the Desktop picture is to narrow, go to: Apple > System Preferences > Desktop & Screen Saver > select the Desktop tab and change the Fit to Screen setting to Fill Screen.
Likewise, I might complain to Verizon because those folks had no business messing with those setting.

23" Apple Cinema Display and accurate color?

I use a dual 2.3GHz Power Mac G5 along with a 23" Apple Cinema Display fro graphic design work. I used to use a Pantone Color calibration device when I was using third-party monitors with my Macs. Now that I have the Cinema Display, I haven't bothered to calibrate this wonderful monitor. I had heard that using Apple's displays with their own computers would display the most accurate color possible without calibration. I haven't changed the color settings in my Adobe products, and I'm not seeing any significant issues with my color outputs. Any advice on this subject is appreciated.

If the display uses the Apple Display Connector (ADC)
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/AppleDisplayConnector.j pg/800px-AppleDisplayConnector.jpg>
you will need a DVI to ADC adapter.
<http://www.welovemacs.com/mb571zla.html>
They are also available on eBay.
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-DVI-to-ADC-adapter-A1006-for-Apple-LCD-monitors-Mi nt-Condition-/251073546040?pt=US_Video_Cables_Adapters&hash=item3a75264738#ht_5 0 0wt_1089>

Colour accuracy in Adobe Reader

Hi all
I run Acrobat Pro (10.1.13) and calibrate my display monthly using an X-rite hardware calibrating device. I want to calibrate another display (same make/model) for someone else to assess CMYK PDFs but they will be using Adobe Reader only, not full Acrobat. Is Reader capable of viewing accurate colours?
thanks,
Iain

Thanks for your reply Anubha. I know we can view CMYK PDFs in Reader but will we be seeing the same colour as we would do in the full version of Acrobat (taking the monitor and viewing conditions out of the equation for the moment)? We will be using the latest version of Reader, but we could use an earlier one if that was better in this respect.
thanks,
Iain

Colour change in identically exported PDFs: InDesign CS5 to CS6

Artwork turns out with a greener hue in a PDF Print document exported using InDesign CS6 trial software that has ruined a whole print run.
This catalogue has been printed in past years using CS4 and CS5 software, each time the colours in the exported PDF proof, PDF Print file and InDesign files being accurate and matching perfectly.
This time I used a trial of InDesign CS6 - Importing the same mother file as previous years and working on the document. When exporting the document however, despite using identical settings to export PDF files in the past, the exported PDFs turn out with a greener hue than the previous CS5 PDFs. I trialed a few different kinds of colour conversions in the PDF export window (i.e. 'no conversion' to 'convert to destination - RGB') just to see what happened - and all turned out with the same result. The colour change is small but this was exxaggerated at print and as a result the colours
looked drastically different from the catalogue the year before. Printing aside, (as it's a whole other ballgame), it came down to this slight PDF colour change.
I'm wondering if anyone can help explain this - does CS6 handle colour exporting differently to CS5?

Hi Eugene,
Looking up the settings, they say the following:
InDesign CS5: Unsynchronised "settings are not synchronised for consistent colour" (odd; CS5 version is where the file exported with accurate colours)
InDesign CS6: Synchronised "using the same colour settings for consistent colour management" (CS6 version exported with a colour change)
Another thing I've realised that might be an issue:
The product images are still in RGB format (supplied by the photographer), where everything else in the artwork is in CMYK format. I've run a test export where I've converted everything to CMYK and exported it to a PDF.
The results:
InDesign CS5: Same colours consistently on both PDFs with RGB images and with all CMYK images.
InDesign CS6: Green hue across PDF with RGB images in it, Correct colours in PDF with all CMYK images.
So is this where the problem lies? The CS6 software having Synchronised colour settings shows a colour change when RGB photos are exported to PDF?
Let me know your thoughts...

Help with colour profiles and wide gamut monitor

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

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

New 21.5" imac, can they be colour calibrated with an eye-one profiler

I have just got a 21.5" imac. I have an eye-one calibrator (gretagmacbeth), can I use this on the glossy screen to get an accurate colour profile? Will the glossy screen effect the profiler? And, how do you achieve the correct white balance if you can't change the individual rgb channels?
Thanks
Katie

I have just got a 21.5" imac. I have an eye-one calibrator (gretagmacbeth), can I use this on the glossy screen to get an accurate colour profile? Will the glossy screen effect the profiler? And, how do you achieve the correct white balance if you can't change the individual rgb channels?
Thanks
Katie

Obtaining accurate printing results

Hi,
I am using Ps CS5.1, Canon printer Pixma MP988 & a Mac OS X10.9.1.
In the last couple of weeks I no longer am getting correct pri ntouts, I susspect something related to colour profiling has recently changed (I must have done it myself but not aware of what it is that I've done to change it) & now there is a serious shift in colours when I make prints. I have checked the printer it is working fine. my computer sreen is calibrated.
Any suggestions hiw to correct it so I can get accurate colour print outs?
Many thanks.
Anat

Many thanks! This will be a very good article to read, the main problem I had with my printing was finally resolved this afternoon, after driving myself crazy about colour profiules, printer problems & lots of other assumptions I finally realised the problem was very simple, it's a faulty batch of printing paper. But now I will read the article you sent because after this incident (it went on for weeks!) I'd like to properly educate myself about printing. Thanks again & best regards.
Anat

Colouring a fabric - colour & texture accuracy

Hello,
I have a piece of fabric that I'm trying to colour with a variety of different light & dark colours (blues, yellows, reds, black, white, grey, etc). The fabric colour that I'm trying to fill is a light grey which shows the texture (shadows, pattern, etc) of the fabric. In the layers pallet I have the fabric layer set to multiply and placed above the colour layer so that the colour comes through.
My problem is that I'm having some difficulty in colouring in the fabric. With lighter colours it's not a problem, but darker colours appear to saturate the selection too much which results in a loss of texture definition - the cracks in the texture appear that they are filled with paint. At the moment I have been playing with a combination of fabric layers set at different blend modes & opacities: multiply, screen & overlay which works to a certain extent but I'm not happy with the realism of the results especially for the darker colours.
With that said I have 2 questions:
1. Does anyone have any good experience with colouring selections which maintain colour & texture accuracy (to see what I mean, design a shoe at NikeID.com). You can see how they colour a lace in a variety of light & dark colours accurately (accurate colours while maintaining good texture). More generally, what's the 'best' approach here to blend (or some other method) the full spectrum of light to dark colours?
2. Ideally, what colour should the underlying fabric be? (white, grey, black?) And why? I notice that it's easy to colour a predominately white fabric with light colours but increasingly difficult to colour the selection the darker the target fill is.
Anything welcome.
Thank you,
Marv.

Hey Zeno. Thanks for that. I just tested your suggestion with a Nike lace - trying to replicate their results. Colour works well for light colours but increasingly becomes desaturated the darker the colour applied.
Through a quick trial and error I have managed to create a fill effect quite similar to Nike. I'm using their white lace as the test with a target of a dark blue.
There are 4 layers:
1st: Lace selection with 100% black fill set on normal set at 33% opacity
2nd: Lace selection with blue colour fill set on overlay
3rd: Shoe layer set of linear light
4th: Lace section with 100% black fill set on normal with 33% opacity.
I used linear burn for the white fabric with a 100% black layer under set at 33% opacity. This actually gives quite a good result for the dark blue. My only quibble is that its reflecting slightly too much light in places visibly seen with white pixels in my version in close zoom. In comparison with Nike, their pixels are a light blue.
Perhaps the lace colour should be darker so less white comes through and appears more natural? I tried to tone down the contrast, but this spoiled the overall effect.

Deskjet 940c on Windows 7: colour management

Hi
I've got an HP Deskjet 640c printer on my computer which I've just upgraded to windows 7, there is no 'proper' HP driver and it uses the inbuilt Windows 7 one. Since I've done the upgrade the colour on my print jobs is wrong (it's too red). At the moment the driver is set to allow the host system to manage colour, but there is an option to allow the printer to do it instead.
What combination of choices in PS and my printer driver is likely to give me the most accurate colour rendition?
tia
andy

Same principle. It seems to me everything is working as it should.
"Monitor calibration" is actually two things: calibration and profiling. Calibration is just a basic correction to bring the monitor in compliance with a few parameters such as temperature, gamma, neutral color balance. But it doesn't do anything about how the monitor actually reproduces color - it cannot change the position of the RGB primaries in three-dimensional color space for instance. This is particularly visible with a wide gamut monitor such as the Eizo.
In short, calibration is not color management.
Color management comes with the second part, profiling. The calibration software makes a monitor profile describing how the monitor behaves, in detail, in its calibrated state. Whether the calibration is achieved via video LUT or monitor LUT doesn't matter (but monitor LUT is usually more accurate).
A color managed application such as Photoshop then converts on the fly to that monitor profile, taking into account gamut and everything else. But Explorer is not color managed, so it just sends the RGB data straight to the (calibrated) monitor unchanged. But it doesn't compensate for the full profile.
Put it another way: Calibration takes you some of the way, and the profile fills in the rest.

Is accurate colour possible in QT?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for