Onscreen proof very different than photoshop.

I just installed the various ICC profiles for my new Epson R2400 printer that are available on Epson's support web site. When I display a photo and use one of these ICC profiles for Onscreen Proofing as the Proofing Profile the image becomes horribly washed out. At first I thought "oh, you just can't compete with real light RGB" but they were pretty bad. So I opened the photos into CS2 and used the same ICC profile as a Proof Setup and did the same Proof Colors. Now in CS2 there was a very slight change - more of what you'd expect in a true proof. Now I haven't printed yet but I'm wondering if I should do all my printing from CS2 rather than Aperture. Or will the outputs be the same and there is just something wrong with the way Aperture proofs on screen. Thanks.
-Josh

Well I printed my first picture on my new R2400 using aperture directly. I used the Premium Glossy paper that came with the printer and I used the PremGlossyRPM ICC profile. Spectacular. Came out better than I thought, and definitely better than the Apple printed 8x10 I had ordered. So I'll just ignore soft proofing.
I loved Endura surface E. Any paper advice?

Similar Messages

  • Lightroom displays colors differently than Photoshop

    Lightroom (and my image previewer - IfranView) display my image colors differently than photoshop.  This is very disturbing (why can't Adobe make this simple!)! 
    Image in question - see below.  Center image is Photoshop, left is Lr 4 and right is InfranView.
    Colorspace:  AdobeRGB 1998
    Image color (exported the TIFF file in Lr, what is shown below):  AdobeRGB 1998
    NOTE:  when I export out as sRGB, IfranView displays it correctly (I don't know why, it can't display ProPhoto correctly, but never had a problem with AdobeRGB).  Lightroom looks incorrect when viewing the TIFF, AdobeRGB JPEG and sRGB JPEG.
    What is going on??  I've tried this on two computers now and it is the same problem!

    The larger file is Adobe RGB and the smaller file is sRGB.  I see no difference in overall tone or color between the two files in LR 3, LR 4, LR 5, PS CS5, PS CS6, PS CC 2014, or Windows Photo Viewer which is color-managed, aside from an almost imperceptible change in the darkest blacks which I'd expect since you're converting AdobeRGB to sRGB at some point.
    I can make the Adobe RGB one look like it does at the left of your first screenshot if I Assign Profile: sRGB to it in PS.
    Since your monitor appears to be wide-gamut and therefore similar to Adobe RGB, I think the problem you're having is that LR thinks the monitor is sRGB for some reason, perhaps due to your switching the cables from one computer to the other without rebooting and recalibrating.  It's also possible that your profile is stored in the monitor rather than in the computer and one computer understands this and the other doesn't so you're getting double-profiling or no profiling occurring.
    It sounds the your only issue is having two computers attached alternatively to one monitor without having a valid profile on each computer for that monitor and aren't restarting each computer to load that profile.  At least that is my analysis given the limited information.
    I would conclude that nothing is wrong with LR or PS just the hardware connections and the color management confusion between the two computers, not your confusion, the computers'.

  • In terms of organizing photos, what does Lightroom do better/different than Photoshop Elements?

    Hi,
    I recently purchased Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements 12.  I have many, many pictures from several years on our hard drive and would love to be able to better organize and tag them, etc.  I have recently learned that Photoshop Elements can do this for me.  I have also recently heard that Lightroom is good for this.  Before I start importing thousands and thousands of files into PSE, I figure I should determine if I should use Lightroom instead.  This would obviously come at an additional cost, so I would like this forum's help in explaining how Lightroom might be better than PSE for this function so that I can determine if it's worth the extra cost.
    Thanks!

    The PSE Organizer has fewer features and more bugs than Lightroom, in my opinion
    Lightroom has more features for searching and more metadata fields for your use if you need them
    Lightroom offers the ability to geotag your photos and display them on a map
    Lightroom can streamline your workflow, so if for example you want to do the same things to multiple photos (including applying the same edits), this is much easier in Lightroom.
    In general, my opinion is that Lightroom's Library Module is a superior piece of software than the PSE Organizer. In general, my opinion is that the user interface for Lightroom's Library module is a superior interface than the PSE Organizer. My opinion is that Lightroom's workflow is smoother and more efficient than doing the same things in PSE.
    But some people love the PSE Organizer. It all depends on what you want to do. Your best path forward is to download the 30-day free trial of Lightroom, view some tutorial videos about Lightroom (don't skip this step), and compare for yourself the PSE Organizer to the Lightroom Library Module (and other parts of Lightroom as well).

  • Is the PRINT quality of Aperture's RAW different than Photoshop's?

    I've seen various comments suggesting that Aperture doesn't handle raw files as well as photoshop. Is this just a screen issue or it is also a print quality issue?

    Depends on how Aperture is handling this. The
    preferred internal rendering intent is used in ICC
    applications that don’t specify a conversion. And you
    can easily change this tag.
    How, where? I'd LOVE to know.
    IF Aperture actually
    tells it’s conversion engine “Use Relative
    Colorimetric”, that’s what you get.
    I'm pretty sure it does, but I'd still like to know if you think there's a way to change this, and run some test prints. I can match aperture's prints exactly by setting the rendering intent in PShop to rel. colorimetric. Sadly, for most of the good art papers, the shadow quality is much better using a perceptual intent, so that means printing through photoshop right now.
    At least in Photoshop (and I’d assume Aperture), soft
    proofs are always Relative Colorimetric with black
    point compensation. So the soft proof should be OK.
    Not true, at least in CS2. You set the rendering intent for soft proofing under Proof setup.

  • Why aperture rather than photoshop? Please help!

    Hi everybody, I have a noisy question in my mind. Today I have bought an apple pro training manual for Aperture. I work with photos, I am a photographer and today I have done my first steps into the world of aperture.
    I was happy using it, learning lesson by lesson but than my friend asked me : "I do not know photographer who use Aperture. they just use Photoshop, why do you want to learn it?". I said "well...."
    Now the question is : why shall I use Aperture rather than Photoshop? what does it gave me more or different than Photoshop? I know that I can easily handle RAW formats and I know the "nondestructive" thing, but...
    I really would like to have an opinion from you.

    rmrpix,
    i have read your "5% photoshop theory" before in some
    other threads, and in my (humble) opinion, this is
    wrong. for me, only the combination of both, aperture
    AND photoshop make it work. aperture is perfect for
    managing the images etc. however before any of our
    photo is used/released/printed, we run it through
    photoshop. even a near perfect image can be improved.
    and such changes can (to use your 95/5% theory) in
    95% of the cases only be achieved with photoshop.
    so for me it's the combination of both - and on a
    personal note - i love aperture, but couldn't work
    without photoshop.
    Steebow,
    Neither could I work without Photoshop, and I agree that any image, no matter how perfect, CAN be improved in Photoshop. But my point is why do that unless the image absolutely needs it? Where does a little image improvement cost too much in post-processing time and effort? Let me give you an example:
    Let's say I have a shoot of 250 photos from a corporate or community event. I shoot a lot of events like golf tournaments, community and corporate functions, so that's what I'll use as my example. I recognize this size shoot (as well as the client requirements) may be far less than some posters shoot for typical weddings or other assignments, but it's still a decent batch of images.
    Out of these 250 images, I might throw out 40-50 at image ingestion - they are too flawed to merit ANY post processing.
    Out of the remaining 200 or so I might find 50-60% that are not "proof image quality", either because:
    1) they have some flaw that is not bad enough for discard, but not good enough for "proof quality"; or
    2) they are near duplicates of the same image, taken to make sure no one is blinking, or to bracket exposures, or as part of a sequence to catch a candid action/facial expression, etc.
    I don't discard these images, documenting them with metadata and keeping them in Aperture for a complete record of the shoot. But I don't perform ANY post processing on them, in either Aperture or Photoshop.
    The remaining 80-100 images will be submitted to the client as proofs. For proof purposes - and I make this clear to my clients - I perform ONLY global image processing - straighten the horizons, globally adjust tones and colorcast, occasionally adding a bit of highlight-shadow adjustment or sharpening (over the default Raw Fine Tuning paramaters if the image needs it.) All of this can be done quite adequately in Aperture. The proofs are submitted as low res images on contact sheets, CD/DVD, or - more and more frequently - on a private access web page. Why should I "Photoshop" the images more at this stage? What value does that add for the time expended?
    A typical client for my practice is using the images for flyers, newsletters, perhaps an occasional annual report. So the client select rate is perhaps 1-in-5 to 1-in-6, possibly lower. In this example that's maybe maybe 15-25 images out of 250 taken. Many (but not all) of these client selects may require Photoshop to produce finals, depending on the clients output needs. (If they only need 1/4 page B&W images for a newsletter, I will usually do this in Aperture.) So for this type of shoot I hit Photoshop for maybe 6-10% of the original images. Even then I make extensive use of batch processing actions to minimize Photoshop "mouse time".
    Everyone's business (or personal style) is different, but I'm convinced that careful workflow/digital asset management will in the end reduce, not expand Photoshop processing time. Having, like most, started out trying to "Photoshop" everything I shot, (the "After all, that is MY IMAGE and I want to make it perfect" syndrome), I learned long before Aperture was released that careful image capture, even more careful image evaluation, and always thinking about efficiency of workflow, is the best way to spend less time in front of the monitor so I can spend more time behind the camera. To me, and for my uses, that means using Photoshop when I need it and not a minute more. But YMMV.
    Mike
    PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz, Radeon X800XT Graphics Card; MacBookPro 2.0Ghz   Mac OS X (10.4.6)   iMac800 and Powerbook G4 also in household

  • Is the iPad iTunes app quite different than the regular PC

    I'm new to iPad. I went to check out iTunes app on iPad, and it is so limited what you can do. Very different than regular PC. Is there something I am missing?

    It depends on what you want to see/manage - you can tap on your id at at the bottom of, for example, the Music tab in the iTunes app (or via Settings > iTunes & App Stores) and you can view/manage your id, address and payment info.

  • 32 bpc linear workflow -- render different than preview

    Hi,
    I've been experimenting with a 32 bpc linear workflow and have run into an issue where what I see in the preview window (what I want) looks very different than what is rendered out. The difference seems to be caused by a curves adjustment layer-- it almost seems like it is ignored on final output.
    A screenshot of the preview window:
    What the image looks like during a RAM preview or when rendered:
    The RAM preview looks correct though (or like the 1st image) when I go to Preferences-->Previews-->set "Color Management Quality" to "MoreAccurate"
    I'm using sRGB linearalized working space. Outputting to an 8 bpc TIFF sequence with output profile set to sRGB (I'm not sure what to do with the "Convert to Linear Light setting"-- does "On for 32 bpc" mean on when the input is set to 32 bpc, or when the output is set to 32 bpc? -- either way this setting doesn't appear to fix the issue)
    This particlular project doesn't really use any of the things 32 bpc is good for, but I'm very interested in figuring out a fix for future use.
    Here's the project file if anyone is interested in taking a look:
    cs6 version
    cs5.5 version
    Any help would be greatly appreciated
    Thanks!
    --Ross

    You must have use display color management turned off or simulate output set incorrectly. Notice the difference between this setup and your screenshots.
    If you are going to use color management you must use the whole banana. You must calibrate your monitor. You must render to formats that support color management. With only a portion turned on output will never match the preview.
    One more suggestion. If you're having problems with a render please send us a project with the failed render still in the render CUE. Your projects were comps only.

  • Yosemite Mail Sets IMAP Flags differently than earlier Mail Versions

    Since converting to Yosemite, our junk mail filtering system (a copy of Thunderbird running 24/7 on our Linux server) has not worked.   We get over 1,000 pieces of Spam per day and use this setup to screen the junk before reading on our iPhones.
    After hours of debugging I discovered that when Yosemite Mail initially downloads a message from the IMAP server (we use HostGator), Yosemite Mail sets the IMAP Flags on the server to be NonJunk    $NotJunk    NotJunk 
    Yosemite Mail does this before any message is viewed.
    This is very different than Mavericks and earlier versions of Mail.  In those earlier versions, no IMAP server Flags were set when a message was downloaded.  The same is for the current version of iOS on my iPhone; no IMAP server Flags are set.
    The problem is that the three versions a "Not Junk" flag set by Yosemite Mail are confusing Thunderbird and probably other Mail clients.
    Does anyone know a way to stop to Yosemite Mail from setting these flags?   I filled a bug report with Apple, but am not optimistic...

    Back up all data before proceeding.
    1. Triple-click anywhere in the line below on this page to select it:  
    ~/Library/Mail/Bundles
    Right-click or control-click the highlighted line and select
              Services ▹ Open
    from the contextual menu.* A folder may open, or you may get an error message that the item can't be found. Either result is normal. If the folder does open and has contents, move the contents to the Desktop. Relaunch Mail and test. If there's no change, put the contents of the folder back and quit Mail again.
    2. Repeat with this line:
    /Library/Mail/Bundles
    This time you may be prompted for your administrator login password when you remove the items. Make sure they're removed from the folder and not just copied to the Desktop. If necessary, copy them first and then move the originals to the Trash.
    *If you don't see the contextual menu item, copy the selected text to the Clipboard by pressing the key combination  command-C. In the Finder, select
              Go ▹ Go to Folder...
    from the menu bar and paste into the box that opens by pressing command-V. You won't see what you pasted because a line break is included. Press return.

  • Printing using Proof settings results in very different output from Shop vs ID

    Shop and InDesign come out with very different color values using the same settings when printing with Proof Settings.  Anyone know why, or which is correct?  Here's my scenario:
    1. In the color settings for both apps I turn off Black Point Compensation, Use Dither and Compensate for Scene referred profiles (some are Shop only obviously).  Other than that it is default settings.
    2. I create a CMYK document with 4 squares.  Filled with 100% Cyan,  100% Magenta,  100% Yellow,  and 100% Black respectively.  Setup the Working CMYK in both apps to Coated Forga27.
    4. I setup a Custom Proof condition with an ISO Uncoated Yellowish CMYK profile.  Preserve CMYK Numbers and Black point compensation are both unchecked.
    5. In the Print engine I set Color Management to Use Proof settings, Color handling done by the application, and leave the Printer profile set to the CMYK working space (Coated Forga27), and Output Color as Composite CMYK in ID.  Black Point compensation is also unchecked here.
    6. Now when I print to file and Distill (job settings set to leave color unchanged and compression is off) the resulting files from both apps here is what I get:
    InDesign CS4:
    Cyan square (C:84 M:14.6 Y:0 K:0 ), Magenta square (C:2.9 M:84.9 Y:14.1 K:0 ), Yellow square (C:0 M:6.2 Y:84.1 K:0 ), Black square (C:67 M:62.75 Y:56.86 K:46.28 )
    PhotoShop CS4:
    Cyan square (C:92.94 M:12.55 Y:5.49 K:0 ), Magenta square (C:5.49 M:94.51 Y:13.73 K:0 ), Yellow square (C:0 M:5.49 Y:92.94 K:0 ), Black square (C:83.14 M:85.49 Y:78.04 K:98.82 )
    Needless to say the results are very different.  I went ahead and did some manual Profile -> Profile conversions in Shop to see what is happening and it seems like Shop is doing a conversion from the Documents assigned CMYK ->Proofing CMYK-> Printer CMYK.  But Shop adds black  point compensation in automatically for the final portion of the color  conversion (Proofing CMYK-> Printer CMYK) even if it is unchecked in the  color settings, Proofing dialog, and the print engine. 
    InDesign has an  entirely different way of "using Proof settings".  It seems that if you choose  Use Proof Settings in the print engine it just assigns Proof CMYK to the  document and Converts that to Printer CMYK.  Document CMYK is ignored  completely.  Verified this through manual conversions in Shop as  well.
    What gives?  Which do we trust?  To me it sounds like PhotoShop is doing the closest to what I would expect.. except for the addition of the sneaky black point compensation without being told to do so.  Thoughts?
    Matt

    Before digging too far, I need to understand what you're trying to achieve.
    With the print settings you describe you are instructing the application to perform two conversions. The color chain is Document CMYK (FOGRA27) – Proof CMYK (ISO Uncoated) – Document CMYK (FOGRA27).
    This is a little odd. Usually the final color space is a print device of some sort, not a press profile. This workflow you describe is a round trip of sorts. We are at FOGRA, convert to ISO, now back to FOGRA. That amounts to simulating one press condition using another press condition, which is rarely done because a press in not a proof device.
    The Proof profile is the print condition you want to simulate. The Print profile is the device doing the simulation, which is often referred to as a proofing device (quite confusing but that's the way it is).
    Photoshop Proof Setup has a Rendering Intent and BPC. InDesign Proof Setup does not.
    In the Photoshop print dialog, there is a Simulate Black Ink option. The InDesign print dialog does not have this option.
    There are two conversions on output. In Photoshop output, the first conversion is Document – Proof. The rendering and BPC options for this first conversion are based on Photoshop color settings. The second conversion is Proof - Printer. The Photoshop print dialog offers 3 options for this 2nd conversion:
    1. Simulate Black Ink Off = Relative Colorimetric, Black Point Compensation On.
    2. Simulate Black Ink On = Relative Colorimetric, Black Point Compensation Off
    3. Paper Color On = Absolute Colorimetric
    Please note the application color settings do not affect this conversion, just the first.
    For the most accurate proof #3 is the best option. That is not saying that absolute colorimetric is ideal for file conversions. It is a rendering intent that is ideal for a proofing workflow, and the conversion to the print device (the 2nd conversion in the output you describe) is what is at the heart of the proofing workflow.

  • Please, the battery of my mac air does not last more than two hours, it's been over 30 days I sent for technical assistance and nothing! I am very disappointed with the mac air, I had a very different expectation of apples products!!

    Please, the battery of my mac air does not last more than two hours, it's been over 30 days I sent for technical assistance and nothing! I am very disappointed with the mac air, I had a very different expectation of apples products!!!

    Maybe the problem is not your MB Air......
    Try these:
    Make sure bluetooth is turned off if you're not using it.
    Set your screen brightness to 4 bars.
    See what's loading in your login items.  Delete the ones you don't need.
    Open Activity Monitor - under All Processes see what's using most of your CPU's resources.
    Highlight the ones with the highest %CPU and hit quit process.
    Remember that when Apple says that your battery should last 7 hours, they tested it just browsing the web and not have anything open in the background and screen is set at 50% brightness.

  • Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with CS3 and CS6 and get the same problem. Doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

    Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with both CS3 and CS6 on 10.8.2 and get the same problem. This doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

    this one is actually a really rare symptom of a flaky connection to the ipod on a Windows PC. there's more going on in terms of hardware on nanos and 5th gens than in the earlier models ... so if the connection is flaky to precisely the right/wrong degree, itunes will see the ipod, but misidentify it as an earlier version of ipod.
    tracking down the cause of the flakiness can be tricky ... as you already know ...
    just checking. have you tried connecting with a different (known-good) USB cable? does that seem to have any impact on the rate of occurence of the problem?

  • New version of iTunes has bug i.e. downloaded mp3 has very different title than original

    When I import the downloaded mp3 the title is very different and offensive words. What is up with this? thnx

    mfromevergreen wrote:
    How do I reply? thnx
    You just did reply.
    Type words and click Reply.

  • Safari displays a very different website than others

    We have one workstation in our workgroup that all of a sudden (last Friday) when you go to "Underground Weather" [www.wunderground.com], it goes to some generic worthless site instead of the real site. All other computers on the network will go to the proper site. Typing the URL in doesn't work either, it just pops back the this awful place. Tried cleaning out the cashe, cookies, pop-ups, and re-set Safari with no luck.
    Any Ideas?
    Thanks
    Mac G4 10.4, Safari 2.0.3

    When you had this problem, did the bogus site look like a shopping site? Tag line something like "Weather Service... what you want when you want it"?
    If the problem returns, while you're looking at the bogus site, open View> View Source and see if it looks different than your other machines looking at the same site.
    My mac has been occasionally doing something similar since it was new (August) and I'm hoping someone can figure out the problem.

  • Lumetri Looks look very different between SG and PPro

    Trying to create Looks in SG and use them as an effect directly appled to a clip(s) in PPro.  Works just fine except what you see in SG is vastly different than what you get in PPro, color-wise.  The clips are 8 bit HDV so some banding issues can occur-to be expected if I 'push' to far.  But this is really different, i.e. what appears grayish in SG is really yellowish in PPro, colors very different.  Any ideas?

    First off there is a bug in the print dialog box with regards to the " proof" profile name and color preview. Make sure that if you change the proof set-up profile you also have to go to the proof set-up portion in the print dialog and re select the " current custom set-up" profile. This bug is completely adding to the confusing complexity of the print dialog box and is clearly in dire need of a complete overhaul.
    Make sure the "match print colors" is checked as well to display the correct output to your device.
    To answer your question...
    >How can I get the workspace preview to match the Print dialog preview (which matches the printout better)?
    In the proof set-up select the profile you want to apply in the " device to simulate" drop down. Select the rendering intent and if you want BPC as well. Make sure you select " Simulate paper color". Observe the preview and click OK.
    Go to the print dialog and select " Photoshop manages color" - select your custom printer profile as well as applying the same rendering intent that you selected in the proof set-up - and if you are using BPC as well. Again, make sure you have "match print colors" checked. Also make sure you are not managing color in the printer driver as this will just double manage color and makes things more confusing.
    Your working space preview in proof set up mode and your print dialog preview should match now - if not, go complain to Adobe about the retarded print features they offer...
    As far as I'm concerned, they are completely lost in development as of now.

  • Printer Profiles and Onscreen proofing

    Is there a way to adjust the options for Onscreen Proofing with ICC profiles in Aperture?
    I downloaded and installed the Premium ICC printer profiles for the Epson Stylus Photo R2400 printer and have noticed an issue when I use Onscreen Proofing with these profiles, especially the matte ones. The screen display is muted as if the contrast is lowered and the colors compressed. I viewed the same image in Photoshop with Proof Colors and did not see this problem until I turned Simulate Paper Color on in the Customize Proof Condition dialog. Then the image took on the same appearance. Interestingly, the problem does not occur when I use the Epson profiles that are installed by default with the software that comes with the printer. The images print fine in Aperture (better than from Photoshop) using either the premium or default profile. I just can't use the premium profiles for onscreen proofing.
    The bottom line is that the Epson Premium ICC printer profiles appear to be incorrectly built and do not simulate paper color accurately. In addition, Aperture appears to simulate paper color by default and I can't find a way to turn it off. This is unfortunate since the default Epson profiles, which are less accurate for printing, provide more accurate onscreen proofing.
    Dual 2.3 GHz PowerPC G5   Mac OS X (10.4.6)   2.5 GB DDR2 SDRAM, NVIDIA 7800GT

    I'm having the same issue and would love here a solution.
    Tim

Maybe you are looking for