Monitor Color Space

My camera records in RGB and my printer prints in CMYK.
My question, what color space for my LCD monitor?
If I don't calibrate, I am given the choice of Samsung 213T factory color space, sRGB and RGB.
Thanks
Richard Cooper

In a perfect world, the 213T colorspace would be precisely the right choice. I'd use that, but I'd start by loading it into the Adobe Gamma utility to "massage" the profile for use by the gamma loader. At some time, you may want to look for a bargain on a hardware package like the Monaco Optix XR Pro for a more precise profiling. Depends on your needs and budget.
Brent
[edit]
Once you load the profile into the Adobe Gamma Wizard, immediately click OK , to save the result as your custom profile, under another name.
BB

Similar Messages

Aperture's internal Color Space?

Does anyone have any information about Aperture's internal color space?

The thread you linked to starts of with the same link I had already posted. Some people in that thread say they think it uses ProPhoto but without having any evidence to back up that claim.
As I also wrote in that thread, if you import ProPhoto tiffs into Aperture and do any kind of modification and then export again (using ProPhoto) you get something that is clipped to Adobe RGB. That's a pretty clear indicator that Aperture uses Adobe RGB internally.
Mies van der Robot wrote:
However, your display system is going to clip everything to AdobeRGB or smaller (depending on the gamut of your display),
That is most likely correct but I have not found any authoritative source for this (the question being whether the conversion from an image color space to the monitor color space is done via relative colorimetric or something else).
and Aperture doesn't have the degree of sophistication for working out-of-gamut that Photoshop does, so as a rule of thumb it probably doesn't hurt to think of the internal space as equivalent to that of your display.
Aperture cannot deal properly with images that have a larger gamut than its internal color space (ie, ProPhoto) but it can easily deal with Adobe RGB files which easily can have a larger gamut than your monitor (you might not be able to see what you are doing, but the same problem exists in Photoshop).

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

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

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

What Color Space to choose for viewing jpegs on a monitor

After reading many webpages and watching many tutorial videos about which color space to use, I get odd results. I understand that sRGB is more for web applications, and that Adobe RGB 1998 has a wider gamut, and that ProPhoto has the widest gamut of colors, particularly helpful with printing.
However, in LR 4, when I export to jpeg as sRGB, Adobe RGB, and ProPhoto, the differences are very noticeable. sRGB looks the most vibrant, Adobe RGB looks flat, and ProPhoto looks dark with a greenish cast. I expected ProPhoto to look best, or is that only for printing, and I have to process differently?
What am I misunderstanding here? TIA.

It depends on three factors:
1. The monitor - normal, which means with a gamut close to sRGB, or "wide gamut" with a gamut that approaches Adobe RGB (and today there are plenty of medium priced "wide gamut" monitors).
2. The viewing application and whether it is color managed. In a nutshell, color management translates the image color numbers to eqivalent color numbers in the monitor's color space.
3. Whether the monitor is calibrated and profiled. In order for color management to work properly the application must know what the image's color space is (embedded profile) and what the monitor's space is (monitor profile). Any display on the monitor is always in the monitor space, but in order for the display to be accurate the translation must be made.
If all three conditions are fulfilled, alll images, no matter what their spaces are, will be displayed more or less the same because they have all been translated to the same display space. I say "more or less" because if the image is in a wide space that needs to be compressed to fit in the monitor space, there may be slight differences in the way colors that are out-of-gamut for the monitor are rendered, but the differences are slight.
Without those three factors, only images in the space closest to your monitor's native space will be properly displayed. So if you have a "normal" monitor, choose sRGB and if you have a "wide gamut" monitor, go with Adobe RGB, but keep in mind that other people with "normal" monitors and without color managed browsers/viewers will not see it properly.

DreamColor Monitor from PC via VGA: Color-Space & Settings?

Context:
Premiere CC on a WIndows 7 laptop with an external DreamColor monitor connected via VGA port (for convenience rather than bit depth).
What color space is appropriate in the DreamColor settings, i.e. what is the VGA likely to be supplying? DreamColor's config options are: [ Full | AdobeRGB | Rec.601 | sRGB | Rec.709 | DCI P3 Emulation ]. I'm guessing sRGB, but is that reasonable e.g. is it the Adobe kind?

Several questions spring to mind ... first, are you calibrating this with an actual "real" calibration tool, such as the i1Display units, anything? Because ... if the answer is no ... well, the output isn't set to any particular "there" before you even start, is it?
Next ... what are you going to be outputting for? B-cast TV? Critical web use? Your own YouTube/Vimeo channel for the heck of it? Family records? Whatever is going to be the "heaviest" output (meaning demands on color space) sets the minimum from what your choices can offer. Critical web work or such, you would either want the Adobe RGB or the Rec.709 I would think. For just fun stuff, the sRGB would work ok.
Fwiw ... Adobe RGB is a wider color space than "standard" sRGB. Rec.601 & Rec.709 are "broadcast" standards that include specialized base/gain/gamma settings. Rec.709 is the newer and far more common one of the two ... and it sets "black" as at value (in 8-bit terms) of 16 and "white" at 235. Data outside those values are used for technical purposes within the "system". Some modern video cams record in Rec.709, btw.

Color Space Issue with Wide-Gamut monitor

Since getting my new (and carefully calibrated) LaCie 324 monitor, I have noticed that RAW (and maybe other) images exported from Lightroom as
sRGB jpegs look washed out and slightly green when viewed outside of Lightroom (IE8, Firefox, ACDSee, windows 7 viewer). It seems not to matter whether the external application horors embedded color space profiles or not, since the unmanaged ones assume sRGB.
When I bring one of these jpegs into PhotoShop it still looks bad, and not what I see in Lightroom. However, if I Assign the Adobe RGB profile to the image, it immediately looks like the Lightroom version. And if I then Convert that image to sRGB and save it, it looks fine everywhere, even on an uncalibrated standard Dell TN LCD display.
Any ideas what I might be seeing here. A friend with the same monitor has the same problem, which is what is leading me to suspect the monitor.
The first image here is converted from Lightroom with sRGB color space. The second was first assigned the Adobe RGB color profile and then converted and saved out again as a jpeg.
Converted Only

I downloaded and ran the program. My version number appears to be 2.1 if I read the numbers right.
I am still at a loss as to why my sRGB jpegs only look right if I assign the wrong profile to them.
Here are the settings in Windows 7 for color management. The highlighted profile is the one just created for my monitor. Display 2 is my main display. Note the "viewing conditions" setting on the advanced tab. Do you think the rendering intent might be at fault here? In Lightroom, should I use Perceptual over Relative or vice versa?

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

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

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

SRGB monitor and SRGB color space in After Effects

Hello, I would like to ask some really basics about color correction. I do mostly animations and editing that plays on web and television sometimes. Im using a dell 2713hm monitor. Should i use the sRGB profile when i color correct? Also should i set my After Effects also to sRGB color space? thanx

My monitor comes calibrated in sRGB i think. But in any case, i m getting the spy4elite tool these days so will fix this issue.
So lets suppose it is. And please lets keep the explanation as simple as possible, cause i have read A LOT and i got confused.
From my understanding when having 8bit and i need to export for web, i should use the sRGB both in profile monitor, in AE color management and in output module? If that is correct, i wanna know what i do when i do 32 bit compositing, and also what i do when i got things for television (either motion graphics/3d or footage)
thanx

Color space setting for new monitor?

New HP LP2480 monitor.
Has multiple settings for colorspace.
For use with FCS- should I be at adobeRGB or Rec 601 or Rec 709?
(Prior to this I used a Apple display and never messed with settings)
Thanks

Does anyone know the color space used in FCP?
Avid is 601
but I think might FCP might be 701 or RGB- yes? no?

Can you show slideshow within Lightroom 4.4 in Adobe RGB color space?

Can you show slideshow within Lightroom 4.4 (not export out from LR) in Adobe RGB color space provided that you are using a wide gamut monitor which is capable and hardware calibrated & profiled to show such color space?
If this is possible, what is required to do so in Windows 8 and i7-4770 & HD Graphics 4600 platform or does LR take care of it automatically?
This is very basic question, however, I could not find a clear answer/info from LR documentation, so wish that someone can advice.

Those settings are probably stored in a plist somewhere in ~/Library/Preferences. If you can locate the appropriate file, you should be able to copy it to all the network user folders.

Asking the Bridge Team: Bridge "working color space" setting when one does not have the Suite?

Common sense tells me there is really no such thing as a
"working color space" in Bridge, because
Bridge is not an image editor, just a browser
Therefore, this may turn out to be a purely academic question; but that doesn't keep my curiosity from forcing me to ask it anyway. ;)
Is there a way to set the Bridge
"color settings" when one does not have the suite?
The only Adobe program I keep up to date is Photoshop, so I've never had the suite. My version of Photoshop is 11 (CS4) and I run updated
(not upgraded) versions of Adobe Acrobat 7.x, Illustrator 10.x and InDesign 2.x. Consequently, the Synchronize color settings command is not available to me.
It seems to me that Bridge is behaving like a proper color-managed browser (e.g. Firefox with color management enabled), in that it displays tagged image files correctly and assumes sRGB for untagged image files. This normally works fine.
But what if I wanted Bridge to assume my
Photoshop color working space for untagged images
so that it behaves the same as Photoshop? I'm just curious, as I deal with a minuscule, practically negligible amount of untagged files.
My reason for bringing it up now is that I don't recall this being explicitly mentioned in forum replies when users inquire about color settings in Bridge. A recent post regarding Version Cue in the Photoshop Macintosh forum got me thinking about this. Just wanting to make sure that I'm right in my assumption that
there is really no such thing as a
"working color space" in Bridge, because Bridge is not an image editor, just a browser.
Thanks in advance.

Hi Ramón,
Thanks for sharing the outcome of your tests. However, I may have found a bug/exception to Bridge's colour management policy!
It appears that CMYK EPS photoshop files are not colour managed in Adobe Bridge, even if they contain an embedded ICC profile.
I've tried every combination in the EPS 'Save As' dialogue box, so it doesn't seem to be an issue with file encoding. Also, Bridge doesn't rely on the low-res preview that is held within the EPS itself.
My guess is that Bridge is previewing the CMYK EPS with a Bridge-generated RGB image, but it's being displayed as monitor RGB (assigned) rather than colour managed (converted to monitor RGB). For most users the difference will be barely perceptible, but the problem became very noticeable when using Bridge to preview Newsprint CMYK images on a wide-gamut monitor (images that should have appeared muted really leapt off the screen!).
How do I report this to the Colour Police at Adobe?!?

Rendering Chroma 4:2:2 with color space 0-255

Hello Everyone.
Just as a warning I'm fairly new to video editing, so I will probably not say this right. I have a screen recording that I used FRAPS to collect, and then I packaged it into an .AVI container w/ a lararith codec , and a 24bit RGB color scheme in video dub. I have then opened and edited that video in Premiere Pro and want to export it. The problem that I'm having is screen recording has a LOT of color between 0-16 and 235-255, so any broadcast color space I use makes the video look awful. I was wondering if anyone knows how I can render out with a 0-255 color space and a decent chroma subsampling (my guess is 4:2:2).
Thank you everyone for your help.

No, you are asking the right question, and I understand your problem. I just can't recreate it.
I just took a really wild Quicktime video I downloaded from Videoblocks.com that isn't anywhere close to being broadcast safe, and I exported it to a Windows Media file.
The first picture is a screenshot from the video. (it is a set of lower thirds in one video - I am just supposed to use one at a time of course.
The second picture is the Reference monitor from frame 12;24
I exported the sequence to a Windows Media file and then imported it, putting it right on top of the other video on the sequence so I could make sure to be on the exact same frame. The third picture is the reference monitor from the WMV file on the sequence. As you can see, there is not much difference. Some, but you have to look closely.
So, my question to you, since I do not use FRAPS, is what are your sequence setting? Did you just drop a clip on the New button to create a new sequence with the exact right settings? And, are you making the mistake of using the renders to help you export?
The problem is that I don't understand your source material. I guess I could download FRAPS from somewhere and give it a try? I am just a bit busy with other things today.

Color Space Management & Final Color Output-not WYSIWYG?

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

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

Color problem with ProPhoto RGB color space

Hi, everyone,
I have wery special problem I think. I use MacBook pro 15" with retina display, adobe Photoshop CC and when I export RAW (from Nikon D7000) from Lightroom 5 to Photoshop with settings: 16 bit TIF, color space: ProPhoto RGB I have a problem with displaying the correct colors. As you can see in this picture:
My problem are some "green" artefacts in absolutely black and white picture. I tried myself to solve this problem and found the following facts: when I convert picture into Adobe RGB or sRGB color space is everything OK - without green artefacts.
But here is one important fact: I have calibrated monitor by datacolor spyder4elite and problem with ProPhoto RGB incorrect color displaying is only when the color calibration configuration is loaded. When I change my display calibration to standard apple color LCD profile than is everything OK.
But using uncalibrated monitor and also Adobe RGB color space are no right solutions for me.
My question is why I have problem with displaying ProPhoto RGB color space in photoshop under calibrated monitor profile and can anybody help me please?
Thanks for answers.

That's a classic example of the basic problem with 16 bit color. There is no solution that I know of.

PS CS with color space set to Prophoto RGB - will ACR change embedded profiles?

Probably a foolish question but my problem is that I have a mixture of files:
My own files (all initially RAW (NEF) which I import into ACR as 16 bit Prophoto RGB ).
Files from family members and from slide scanning performed elsewhere - they are in 2 groups:
The first of these from elsewhere acquired files were all JPEGs that I converted to Tiffs in Bridge before setting out to edit them-- all unfortunately 8bit and sRGB.
The scanned files were scanned as tiffs but also 8bit and sRGB.
My normal procedure is that I in ACR I have set the files to 16 bit and Prophoto RGB. In PS the same but also to preserve embedded profiles. I have the impression that working with the "foreign" files in 16 bit does give me more room for editing but that I should continue with the embedded profiles.
Is there a way to ensure that the color profiles are not changed in ACR even if the line in the middle below says 16 bit Prophoto RGB (I have PS CS5). I would hate to have to change this line each time I view a file in ACR. I would hate more to loose the editing facilities in ACR as these acquired files do need som special care before they are mixed with my own in our family albums. I prefer the 16 bit Prophoto RGB option for my own files as I like to play with them - i.e. apart from including them in Photo Albums.
I do see that a logical way is to process all the acquired files before going to my own files but it is so much more practical for me to work with a mixture of the files sorted chronologically - a year or month at the time.
I would even consider getting an upgrade to CS6 if this version could help me.
Can someone enligthen me?
Thanks, Git

Hi, Tom.
The real issue here is getting accurate color. You can't get accurate color by setting your monitor profile to sRGB. sRGB is a virtual color space that doesn't describe the exact color gamut of any physical device. But, in order to display sRGB or any color space accurately, you need to get a characterization of your monitor.
Here is an AWESOME way to get access to a colorimeter: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/pantone-huey-colorimeter Looks like for $32 you can rent this for a week. Go in on this with a friend and profile both of your monitors and hardly pay a thing. If you have a reasonably good quality LCD monitor, this custom profile you make will be fairly accurate for many months. At the very least, this is way more accurate than having no regular calibration at all.
Hope this helps!
Bret

Monitor Color Space

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for