JPG color / contrast issues

I am exporting from a RAW file to JPG. I then decided to export to TIFF and png to see what difference there would be.
The only changes applied to the RAW were from within Aperature.
I was expecting no big difference when viewing the image at the reduced size to fit the screen but I am very suprised to see a very big difference.
RAW has no color space but Aperture is set to sRGB IEC61966 2-1
Tiff and png are about the same but the jpg looks like the contrast was changed and is much much lighter.
Most photo shops take jpg and transfering Tiff files is rather time consuming. Any ideas on what has gone wrong...what am I forgetting or missing here?

The color space setting for export is under presets.
Checking the TIFF format I see some differences here as well.
Quality set to 10
Color space is correct but DPI is only 72... Changing to 400 to see what happens.
I am using TIFF 16bit... Trying now with 8 bit to see.
None of the above changed my TIFF image in any noticable way. Still much better than the JPG file when viewed on the display.
What application are you using to view and compare the exported image files?
How is the" Gamma adjust" slider set? You have not mentioned it sofar?
Have you checked, if you have multiple versions of your color profiles installed? Maybe the programs you are using to view the image files are using different versions of the same color profile:
For example, searching for AdobeRGB1998.icc results in only two installations - one is a link to the other:
/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Color/Profiles/Recommended/AdobeRGB1998.icc
/System/Library/ColorSync/Profiles/AdobeRGB1998.icc
But the image editors may have private copies of the color profiles in the application bundle, and I am not sure, which version they will use, if there are multiple versions, or if the profile used may depend on the image type, like for example for "sRGB.icc":
Hermione:~ dreschle$ locate sRGB | grep icc
/Applications/GraphicConverter.app/Contents/Resources/sRGB.icc
/Library/Printers/hp/Profiles/sRGB_A.icc
/System/Library/ColorSync/Profiles/sRGB Profile.icc
/Volumes/HermioneLion/System/Library/ColorSync/Profiles/sRGB Profile.icc
/usr/local/etc/ImageMagick/sRGB.icc
You could search for duplicate profiles with the Finder's "Find" ⌘F and add a search rule for the extension ".icc", search range "This Mac": Look for duplicates and compare the dates.

Similar Messages

Color Management issues with Illustrator

Can someone help me figure out the color management issues I'm getting when printing on an Epson 3880 from Illustrator?
The image comes out severely red as evident on the face. I'm not getting the same problem when printing from Photoshop, even though I set same paper profile in printing dialog box.
I attached two printed picture (one from Photoshop CC, and one from Illustrator CC) that I took with my iphone so that you can see the printed result. Even when I try to simulate same thing using illustrator soft proofing process, the soft proof does not show me anything close to how it gets printed out. And I tried all device simulations to see if any would match it. Im using CMYK SWOP v2 for Color space in both programs.

Dougfly,
Only an hour wasted? Lucky you. Color is an incredibly complex subject. First, forget matching anything to the small LCD on the back of your camera. That's there as a basic guide and is affected by the internal jpg algorithm of your camera.
2nd, you're not really takeing a color photo with your digital camera, but three separate B&W images in a mosaic pattern, exposed thru separate red, green and blue filters. Actual color doesn't happen until that matrix is demosaiced in either your raw converter, or the in-camera processor (which relies heavily on camera settings, saturation, contrast, mode, etc.)
Having said the above, you can still get very good, predictable results in your workflow. I have a few color management articles on my website that you might find very helpful. Check out the Introduction to Color Management and Monitor and Printer Profiling. In my opinion, a monitor calibration device is the minimum entry fee if you want decent color.
http://www.dinagraphics.com/color_management.php
Lou

A different take on the "Save For Web" color shift issue...

Ok, everyone who has fussed much with photoshop and "Save For Web" knows about the color shift issue. If you want your colors to look right after you "save for web", you have to work in the sRGB colorspace, and have Proof Colors checked (soft proofing on) and the proof color setup set to Monitor RGB, otherwise what you get looks terrible when displayed in a browser.
But of course if you are editing for print, this is exactly what you DON'T want to do. Well, I work in both. In fact, often the same images, and I want them to appear as close as reasonably possible in both print and web formats, and without a lot of fussing on my part. And I'm pickiest about the print mode, since I have the most control there, so that's the way I want to edit by default.
Nothing new here.
Now comes the interesting part (in my mind, anyway). Obviously there is a known remapping -- because PhotoShop DOES it when you select Proof Colors. So the inverse mapping must also be known (with some gamut issues, but I'm not concerned with those, because, after all, I'm VIEWING it on a monitor anyway!). What I want is a plug-in that automatically applies that inverse mapping so that, when I do a Save For Web, I end up with the colors I've been viewing all the time when setting the shot up in print mode. Then, too, I don't have to worry about what mode I'm in when I'm editing -- it just fixes it when doing a save-for-web.
Again, I want to edit in my normal print mode (typically ProPhoto colorspace, and with soft-proofing off or set to the printer/medium combination I expect to use), then do a single operation (might be a multi-step action) to "screw up" my colors so that when I then do a "Save-For-Web", the resulting image, when viewed on the average color-stupid browser, looks like the image I've been seeing in Photoshop.
Anyone know of such a beast?   I would gladly pay for a plug-in that really works and fixes the problem.
And if you have other solutions, I'm interested, but the absolute requirement is that it I do one single edit pass for my colors for both print and web use, and I get what I see on the screen in PS on both the prints and on the web display (i.e., working in sRGB/Monitor RGB mode all the time won't cut it). And PREFERABLY, let me do all my editing work in the ProPhoto (or at least AdobeRGB) colorspace so I have a gamut closer to what the printer can do.
Anyone got a decent solution for this?

Sorry, I think I'm being unclear. This has nothing to do with individual monitor profiles. In Proof Setup, "Monitor RGB" amounts to turning off ALL color management, and simply letting the monitor do what it will. It is what the vast majority of web browsers do (even if the operating system provides color management, the browsers don't take advantage of it), so that is what you need to consider for images that will be viewed on a web browser. If you convert your image to sRGB, select Monitor RGB in Proof Set up, and turn on Proof Colors, you will see the image as it would appear on a web browser (after you save it as a jpg or use "Save For Web/Devices" to save it as a jpg).   Since almost everyone is running different uncalibrated monitors, there will be lots of variation in how it will look to them, so precise control of the color is unimportant.
That said, I would expect the color on a calibrated monitor (such as the one I use when editing) to be reasonably close to the colors I am seeing while editing in PS. To the extent a monitor deviates from "calibrated", those colors will vary, but a good monitor should show good colors.   Unfortunately, this is NOT the case, as my previous post shows. The colors produced by the steps above are oversaturated and significantly shifted in hue. There is, to my mind, anyway, no reason for this. Adobe clearly knows what the mapping is between the colors as it displays them in PS and the un-controlled "Monitor RGB" -- that is, it is the color map they are using during normal editing display. If they were to reverse-apply that map prior to saving it as a jpg, then the image would appear on a browser on that same (presumably calibrated) monitor very similar to what you set up when editing. Anyone else viewing the image on a web browser with a calibrated monitor would also see good colors. To the extent other viewers' monitors are out of calibration, their colors will suck, but there's nothing you can do about that.
I guess in some sense I AM "asking for a Color-Mamangement-solution for a "non-Color-Management-situation", but specifically I'm asking for PS Color Management to do the best it can for non-Color-Managed situations that we all face every day.
Does that make more sense?

Lightroom 2 & 3 Beta color, contrast WAY off on display 2

Lightroom 3 Beta 2 / Windows 7 64bit / Dual calibrated displays
Display 1 connections are HDMI out to digital in, display 2 is digital out to digital in.
PROBLEM
In both the Lightroom 3 Beta 2, and Lightroom 2 v2.6 632038, color, contrast and so on are WAY off on my number 2 monitor. If I drag a Photoshop CS4 window from the left display to the right display I see no difference, looks fine. This is also true with Picasa 3, and iMatch Digital Image Management software and preview images in Picasa photo viewer. The issue seems to be just with Lightroom.
I don't see any settings for adjustment of the Lightroom right hand screen in either version - Help appreciated, IM

If you want to, you could zero out all the settings and then save this as a preset and then automatically that preset to all imported images. Not really sure why you would want to do this though. All your images look pretty flat. The default settings do a fair job of approximating what you see on the back of you camera when you made the shot and give you a good place to start. I tried zeroing things out for a while, and then found out I was bringing every image pretty much back to the defaults, and so stopped doing that.

Low Contrast Issue

Folks,
I currently own a Canon T2i DSLR, and just purchased a Powershot SX280. I noticed in two of my recent outdoor pictures with the new Powershot SX280, I got low contrast shots in auto mode. Basically, the pictures have a hazy, grey look to them. On one of my shots, I re-took it 3 times (pool area shot), and still the low contrast, since it was obvious on the image display on the camera. The 2nd shot, I didn't notice it, till I downloaded on my computer. In both cases, I had no intention of shooting a low contrast picture. One of pictures (pool shot) was sent to the virtual trash can, since I re-took it with the T2i without the low contrast issue, the other picture (ping pong) I repaired in Adobe photoshot by adjusting the contrast. This was very mysterious to me, since I've only experienced this with my T2i, when I get some bright sunlight coming into the lens.
In both shots with the Powershot SX280, I didn't spend any time to see what "mode" it detected for the shot, and just took a quick point and shoot to capture the moment. Anyone have any idea what might have happenned. Here is a description of the photos:
1. Two children in the pool with a light color deck with plenty of sunlight reflecting off of the deck and water. Some water movement in background.
2. Two children playing ping pong in a shaded porch area with a window behind them that had little sunlight reflection on it.
In both cases the children are in focus, so I've got the focus correct, but I think somehow some other factors threw off the camera and led to the low contrast. The ping pong shot would probably have been better suited by speeding up the shutter speed to catch the ball without a blurr, but the shutter speed was fast enough that the kids were not blurry even with their hand/body movement.
Any hints?
Greg

If you could post up pics, that can help with a diagnosis.

Nikon D90 RAW/NEF color vs. in-camera JPG color

I'm new to Aperture and also (now) taking more NEF+JPG images.
I've been satisfied with most of my JPGs in the past but I'm taking more RAW images now and finding that they don't match the JPG color when viewed in Aperture 3. When I use ViewNX to tweak RAW images the "starting point" for color and adjustments is much closer to the matching JPG but when I use Aperture, there are obvious differences between the JPG and Aperture's 'conversion' of the RAW image. The listed White Balance is different when Auto WB is used and the histogram is much different. The RAW image isn't a good starting point from which to begin tweaking to improve upon the JPG.
I realize that there are efforts by others to "profile" the Nikon cameras but I'm surprised that Aperture is so far off the mark. Both iPhoto and Photoshop Elements seem to do a better job.
(The latest ACR is installed.)

I suppose it depends on what in-camera processing you're doing (Normal, Vivid, active D-lighting, etc). What you're seeing on the screen, and in ViewNX is edits applied to the jpeg embedded in the RAW file.
The RAW will always look different from the jpeg, because the RAW has absolutely no processing done to it. iPhoto should look identical to Aperture as I believe it uses the same RAW processing. PSE/Lightroom/PS all use ACR, and they should all look the same, but will likely look somewhat different from iPhoto and Aperture.
I generally just keep my D80 on Normal (and it doesn't have active D-lighting, but I can selectively add D-lighting in the edit menu if I choose (I don't)), and I find that a small .05 bump to Contrast, .1 to Definition, .05-.1 to Saturation, and .1 to Vibrance is about exactly what I see on the camera screen. It's a good starting point, and I just created a preset I apply to every image I import (had a very similar preset in Lightroom).
One thing you could do is set up a tripod, set your camera to RAW+Jpeg, and go through each of the color modes, and active D-light modes. Once you get those into Aperture, you can tweak the RAW to match it's Jpeg, and save that as a preset. Then the next time you're out shooting, when you bring in your RAW images, you can just apply whatever preset (Normal, Softer, Vivid, etc) to them, and you'll have a starting point matching the out of camera Jpegs.
I'm actually planning on doing just that for my D80, and eventually when I upgrade to a D300 doing the same for it.

In settings for display i believe i have trouble with calibrating the color contrast

i i need help calibrating the color contrast...

Hi trudyslater,
I apologize, I'm a bit unclear on the exact nature or context of your question. If you are having issues calibrating the display on your MacBook Pro, you may find the following article helpful:
OS X Yosemite: Calibrate your display
If you are having other display issues, you may find this article more useful:
Apple computers: Troubleshooting issues with video on internal or external displays - Apple Support
Regards,
- Brenden

Looking for a better solution to the "Save for web" color shift issue

Ok, everyone who has fussed much with photoshop and "Save For Web" knows about the color shift issue. If you want your colors to look right after you "save for web", you have to work in the sRGB colorspace, and have Proof Colors checked (soft proofing on) and the proof color setup set to Monitor RGB, otherwise what you get looks terrible when displayed in a browser.
But of course if you are editing for print, this is exactly what you DON'T want to do. Well, I work in both. In fact, often the same images, and I want them to appear as close as reasonably possible in both print and web formats, and without a lot of fussing on my part. And I'm pickiest about the print mode, since I have the most control there, so that's the way I want to edit by default.
Nothing new here.
Now comes the interesting part (in my mind, anyway). Obviously there is a known remapping -- because PhotoShop DOES it when you select Proof Colors. So the inverse mapping must also be known (with some gamut issues, but I'm not concerned with those, because, after all, I'm VIEWING it on a monitor anyway!). What I want is a plug-in that automatically applies that inverse mapping so that, when I do a Save For Web, I end up with the colors I've been viewing all the time when setting the shot up in print mode. Then, too, I don't have to worry about what mode I'm in when I'm editing -- it just fixes it when doing a save-for-web.
Again, I want to edit in my normal print mode (typically ProPhoto colorspace, and with soft-proofing off or set to the printer/medium combination I expect to use), then do a single operation (might be a multi-step action) to "screw up" my colors so that when I then do a "Save-For-Web", the resulting image, when viewed on the average color-stupid browser, looks like the image I've been seeing in Photoshop.
Anyone know of such a beast? I would gladly pay for a plug-in that really works and fixes the problem.
And if you have other solutions, I'm interested, but the absolute requirement is that it I do one single edit pass for my colors for both print and web use, and I get what I see on the screen in PS on both the prints and on the web display (i.e., working in sRGB/Monitor RGB mode all the time won't cut it). And PREFERABLY, let me do all my editing work in the ProPhoto (or at least AdobeRGB) colorspace so I have a gamut closer to what the printer can do.
Anyone got a decent solution for this?

Chris
I spent all day Googling and doing side by side comparisons of my old and new systems.
My display is a Dell U2410. It has several presets, including sRGB and Adobe RGB. I've been using sRGB.
On my OLD system, (Win XP, PsCS2, DwCS4) there seems to be no distinction between color managed and non color managed apps, even on this wide gamut display. I could capture (digital camera) in Adobe RGB, open and edit in PsCS2, save as .psd, convert to CMYK for print, or convert to sRGB for SFW. All images looked identical and they printed and displayed perfectly. I thought this was normal, and seemed logical. This also seems to be the source of my incorrect assumptions. I was trying to get my new machine to behave like my old one.
So I get this new machine (Windows 7, PsCS5, DwCS5) and now (still in sRGB display mode) all color managed apps appear de-saturated. Non color managed apps are OK. If I switch the display to Adobe RGB, color managed apps are OK, but non color managed apps are way too saturated. From my investigation, I believe this is normal behavior on a wide gamut display. I've tried changing the Control Panel > Display > Screen Resolution > Advanced settings > Color Management options, but to no avail. Either I'm missing something, or Windows 7 is doing color management differently.
It seems my only option now is to use Adobe RGB display setting for Ps, etc. and switch to sRGB for Dw and non color managed apps. Or, have 2 separate files for print and web. I've Googled 'til my eyes are numb and still not sure I'm getting this. Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.
Finally, I don't see an edit function here, so I can't remove my previous incorrect reply. Moderator, please feel free to do so.
Thanks

A/B Color contrast in develop module

It would be really nice to hace a slider (or three, I'll explain) for "color contrast".
Threre is "contrast" slider that influences the luminosity basically. What I would want to have is a way to control color contrast while preserving luminosity as well as preserve color balance.
A single slider implementation
Basically the simplest way (but a bit crude) to do it would be with a single slider.
The slider defaults to 0.
Moving it to the right would be equivalent to the following photoshop procedure:
Change mode to LAB
Curve adjustment
Steepen both the A and B curves linearly (pull extreme points in and leave the curve straight, plus keep the center where it is to preserve color balance)
Leave the L curve alone
Apply
switch mode back to RGB
Moving it left would be the same, except the AB curves would be made shallower rather than steeper (rotate the curve clockwise instead of counter clockwise about the center)
A two slider implementation
Same as the above, except that you would have separate A and B sliders (you might call the tint contrast and temp contrast to be consistent with the color balance sliders, which are just like moving the center point of the AB curves)
A three slider implementation
Basically this is like having bothe the one slider ("overall color contrast") and the two sliders ("temperature contrast" and "tint contrast"). It's a bit redundant but having the single control there makes it easier when you simply want to globally increase the color contrast without being too picky about the two separate controls (I guess easier for beginners)

Not at all. The saturation control has quite a different effect that this, and much les subtle. Saturation just increases saturation without changing the hue. This actually changes the hue causing a separation in hues that is impossible to achive in any manuver you would to in RGB space. It drives colors apart rather than increasing their chroma.
Try it yourself on a few images (especially on images that have nearly uniform color, such as deserts or faces. You will see that this is an entirelty different thing than saturation.

DNG & Camera Manf. JPG color conversions

IF, a Camera Manf. had a camera that outputs to DNG ... could they imbed in the DNG file ... the "equivelent" of LR "pre-sets" for "there" JPG Color conversion.
* So, In LR at a click of a Pre-set listing you could see what the Camera Manf. JPG out of the camera would be like. (if you "would have" shot this DNG in JPG) ... and then you could do a compair.
Or maybe you would "just" run it as a choice on import ... as a starting point, or when in a rush a result.
* Just curious ... could this be done?
Is it only me, or could this be a useful productivity feature for LR.
p.s. I do get the fact that you could make your own pre-sets for your camera.

> "being a designer/distributor myself you are always trying to find ways to make your product (output) different and exclusive ... so yes, having a Generic DNG and making "my" product/output a commodity would not be my first choice either".
I used to help design large, complicated, multi-supplier computer systems. I sometimes got involved with helping to procure products.
The suppliers would try to make us enthusiastic about their special features. If we procured their products, we would often simply lose those features under an abstraction layer of software - they were unwanted! We needed interchangeable components. Call it "commodity" if you like - but I don't really agree with that term here. "Commodity" to me implies that it doesn't matter which you choose. "Interchangeable" still leaves other factors to be taken into account.
If Nikon adopted DNG (chuckle!) we wouldn't really claim that a D40 and D80 and D200 and D2Xs were "commodity"! They would still be high quality high value differentiated products.
In fact, camera manufacturers are pretty foolish if they adopt such an attitude. Within weeks of camera launch, all the major raw converter suppliers have reverse-engineered the raw files and camera details enough to be able to perform high quality raw conversions. All essential aspects of the specification are known, and sometimes even published by 3rd parties!
Who do the camera manufacturers think they are hiding information from? Answer: "from 3rd party software companies whose mission is, in effect, to make the images from the camera look as good as possible"! How stupid can camera manufacturers be?
DNG still has ways for camera manufacturers to hold what Adobe call "secret sauce". There may well be limitations in the current specification of DNG that causes problems for some manufacturers - Hasselblad-Imacon apparently had problems. But most manufacturers almost certainly have no such problems - and Pentax shows what CAN be done by a camera manufacturer, (the one who once tried to promote the idea of a universal lens mount), that cares about its users and sees the way the world is moving.

Camera Raw Color Temperature Issue

Help me verify color temperature issue please.
I shoot with Canon EOS 5D.
I sat white balance mode to K - Manual Kelvin temperature - and set value to 6000K.
So my raw files should have this setting - color temperature 6000K.
Canon ZoomBrowser EX shows me the value - 6000K
Nevertheless I see different reading in Adobe Camera RAW converter (as shot)?
Photoshop CS2 Camera Raw CT=5600K Tint=+3 (! as Shot !)
Why?

Ramon seemed to have the answer in hand, then G Sch above chimed in with some random comment about coordinate systems. Weirdly, Ramon then agreed with G Sch's nonsense and thanked him for it. Suddenly the thread has suffered an ineluctable defenestration.
Is:
- camera maker's control for XXXX Kelvin wrong?
- Adobe's control for XXXX Kelvin wrong?
- the use of the designator "K" in these contexts wrong, as it implies physics reference for the measure while the camera and ACR just do their own thing?
By the logic used in this thread, 1/250sec shutter doesn't have anything to do with a time standard, nor does F4 mean an aperture, it's just a coordinate in a locally defined system, la la la. So why bother to even code it in EXIF? What's the point of providing a control in terms of K if K isn't normalized?
The question was answered at Ramon's first post: ACR doesn't read the 5D white bal metadata. The camera K setting is used for in-camera processing and by Canon utilities. But note that the raw data are white bal agnostic but white bal results are subject to a camera profile which may differ between OEM and ACR, and at which point there is room for discrepancy for interpretation of color. Which one is right? I can't say. It's important to realize the results for a given K setting may differ between OEM and ACR because of this. Contrary to what G Sch writes above, the same K setting ought to give the same results if a "Kelvin" setting is to have real meaning, but the seems to be impracticable if the developers don't agree on the characterization of the gear.

Color shift (color management) issues in Mavericks

Noticed color management lacking for Safari and Dock icons just after Maverick update, but was unable to check it with recalibration. Today X-Rite issued an update for i1 Display PRO and i was able to recalibrate my display, but the problem unsurprisingly wasn't in the display profile.
Bellow are two screenshots of Safari vs. Chrome and FF vs. Chrome respectively.
Color difference is seen with the naked eye, but gray and blue fields' values are also annotated (Safari is on the left, Chrome is on the right).
These are FF (on the left) and Chrome (on the right) with no color difference, both browsers are color-managed.

Issues here too: 2013 Mac Pro, latest Mavericks/browser versions (OS X 10.9.4), and Dell UP2414Q display (known for good color—not to mention the only retina display money can buy).
Safari seems fine: web sites with no color profiles in the images look very much as I am used to from OS X Lion and Windows on other machines (some variation from screen to screen is just life). CSS colors match image colors when they should.
Firefox is ultra-saturated: web sites the look fine in Firefox--and identical to Safari--under OS X Lion (on a different Mac/display anyway) but on the new Mavericks system, colors are eye-burningly saturated! That's CSS and images alike (without color profiles). CSS and image colors still match—but both are WAY oversaturated.
Note: images dragged from Safari and Firefox to my desktop both look fine when opened in Quick Look or Preview. Both (again, images without profiles) look super-saturated like Firefox when opened in Photoshop CC—despite Photoshop having the same settings I'm used to using (color management Off for RGB, working space set to Monitor) on my old Mac with PS CS6 under Lion. Yet the color values in PS CC do register as correct despite looking so bad (same goes when opening my own RGB source PSDs that generated the web sites to begin with).
Shouldn't Safari and Firefox out of the box look alike, since they do in earlier OS versions? (Even if some workaround is found, "out of the box" a new Mac with default Firefox installation now looks terrible.)
Separate but complicating issues, in case it helps to diagnose this:
a) The Dell display's default calibration looks quite good to me; but if I run Apple's visual calibration steps which I would normally do on a new Mac, everything gets very dark. (So I went back to the default calibration, which is supplied by Apple and called "Dell UP2414Q"; Apple clearly supports this display specifically, since I never installed any Dell software.)
b) When I take an OS X screenshot of Safari, despite it looking "right" everywhere (Preview and Photoshop CC alike), values are way off. (Regardless of whether I strip the color profile or not when importing the screenshot into Photoshop CC.) When I take a screenshot off Firefox, the screenshot looks "right" (no longer oversaturated!) in Preview and Quicklook. When imported into Photoshop CC, Firefox screenshots behave just like drag-saved images from Firefox: they appear super-saturated just like in the browser, BUT the color values at least register correctly.
c) No setting I can find for Photoshop CC will make exported images look right (and match CSS colors) in ANY browser unless I accept them being super-saturated while I work on them (which of course is untenable). I'll deal with that separately: I've abandoned the new Mac Pro for Photoshop work and gone back to my old Mac (and PS CS6)--but this I assume to be Adobe's fault. I mention it only in case it's some kind of clue.
For what it's worth, here's my interpretation: Firefox and Photoshop are using the full gamut of the display, while Safari is not—and Safari looks GOOD not using the full gamut. (And at least with this Dell display, it looks "correct" that way.) Pure primary red #FF0000 (images and CSS alike) which appears normal to me in Safari and Preview and Quicklook turns to eye-burning neon red in Firefox and Photoshop (with management Off and working space set to Monitor). It's kind of amazing that the display can show a red even more brilliant than I have ever seen on a computer before, BUT it doesn't help me design web sites for the rest of the world who has a more ordinary gamut.
Maybe this is just a long-standing Firefox bug, revealed to me now that I have a large-gamut display? (But that wouldn't explain why other people have seen colors MORE saturated in Safari then Firefox.)

After syncing my iPad2 my color/contrast settings are all messed up. Reds are blue, greens are grey. It resembles infra-red images I've seen. How do I restore normal color/contrat settings?

After syncing my iPad2, all of my color/contrast settings are messed up. Reds look blue and greens look grey. It reminds me of infra-red imaging. I'm not sure what happened. Can someone tell me how to fix this and maybe tell me what I did to cause this?

Try going to Settings > General > Accessibility > white on black and turn this OFF.

Color rendering issue

i'm using aperture since version 1. and till today i see the same color rendering issues which occurs when applying heavy exposure correction on my canon pro camera files. when i correct overexposed images i get a strange yellow posterisation not a smooth transition like with, capture one, raw developer, adobe lightroom & arc. i decided to do a more controlled test to see whats going on. the result is kind of disapointing...... http://db.tt/xGvmhOzK not only is aperture far behind when it comes to recover overexposed areas compared to it's competitors it also shows missing colors !

well i tried adjusting them, but it makes no difference, i am thinking it is a xorg issue

Fill color picker issue

When I double click on the fill color in the tool bar the color picker window opens. Unfortunately it is opening to a color that is not the color of my fill such as this orange here instead of the green. I am wondering if I have some sort of color theme option turned on somewhere? Any help to get this back to normal would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, felt like I was going crazy
From: Jacob Bugge
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:29 AM
To: steve sheets
Subject: fill color picker issue
fill color picker issue
created by Jacob Bugge <https://forums.adobe.com/people/Jacob+Bugge> in
Illustrator - View the full discussion
<https://forums.adobe.com/message/6629962#6629962>

JPG color / contrast issues

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for