Premiere color management, or lack thereof?

Now I know Premiere isn't color managed in a strict sense: it doesn't use ICC profiles to map an output of simulate displays like After Effects or, to a point, Speedgrade does.
I also know that internally, all effects and color processing takes place within Premiere's own wide gamut 32-bit space.... but that means the footage still needs to be converted when read and eventually displayed regardless of if it's your computer monitor, your broadcast monitor or a file.
After all I've read I can't quite put my finger on how Premiere handles things. It's not a problem that keeps me up at night as my projects go through a full finishing phase but I would just love to know in general.
Is Premiere using smart interpretation when reading footage? How does it know if something needs to be transformed from a log space or Rec 601 or Rec 709. I know many media files are tagged internally with that info, but what if they aren't?
What exactly does Premiere output to? Rec 709 across the board?
I guess I just don't understand how Premiere does things when it's stand-alone.

email, but it does not really matter which app. all only allow color

Similar Messages

What adjustment should I make when Render Video to make it look best in non color managed players?

I have experienced when rendering video from Photoshop that the color looks especially bad in Quicktime Player compared to what it looked in PS. I read that there is a color shift issue when Rendering Video from Photoshop due to the lack of color management in some video players. I know this is more a player issue than a Photoshop issue, but I want to be able to make my video look best across all players.
Is there any kind of general rule for an adjustment I can make?
I can't seem to find much information on Google about this particular shift with regards to PS' Render Video.

The only way to handle final output in video is to run it though a calibrated broadcast monitor, and set things per broadcast standards. I do not think that Photoshop offers that output, but Premiere Pro does.
Apple's QT Player has many issues, from gamma to color, and is not, IMHO, an ideal player. There are settings, that might help it, but if you were to deliver to a dozen recipients, then it is unlikely that each would wish to spend time with that calibration.
This article might be helpful: http://www.videocopilot.net/blog/2008/06/fix-quicktime-gamma-shift/
Good luck,
Hunt

Vista color management & CS3

Two weeks ago I wrongly faulted my new Dell 2707WFP monitor for its high contrast and saturation after many failed profiling attempts using the Spyder2Pro with the updated Vista software. I'm still at a loss as to why images are dark and overly saturated in Photoshop, Bridge and Lightroom. They were all fine on an older Dell system running XP home and CS2. I've gone so far as to purposely inflict various gamma curve settings in Spyder to bump up the low end luminance but resulting profiles still show images clipped in the low end and overall saturated even as the desktop and the PS interface turn a sickly pale.
I'm new to CS3 and Lightroom and so I'm not sure if the following is normal. When I view a NEW batch of images that were not previously viewed in Bridge, they are normal looking, however when I click on a thumbnail, it then reverts to the same garish contrasty version that I see full size in the above adobe software when opened. The same thing happens in the WINDOWS PHOTO GALLERY viewer but NOT in WINDOWS EXPLORER. In Explorer the thumbs are as they should be...normal, and if I open them in Microsoft OFFICE PICTURE MANAGER or in Quicktime PICTUREVIEWER, they open as normal images.
All this sounds like a profile issue of some kind, but as far as I know, everything appears to be set correctly in both PS and the profiling software. However, Im not sure about the system settings regarding profiles. In the Windows COLOR folder all the profiles are where they should be and I can select which one to load using the Spyder Profile Chooser. And again, I do restart PS when I change a profile. Could this be some kind of Vista bug??
Other notes:
If I do a screen shot and paste it back into PS, it turns DARKER than the original file.
When I do additional calibrations I restart PS to load the latest profile.
All files tagged sRGB and in sRGB workspace. PS shows this correct space and likewise the correct monitor profile in COLOR SETTINGS
ATI CATALYST CONTROL CENTER fails to run on bootup so windows shuts it down. No fix that I can find for this.
Running Vista Home Premium on a Dell Inspiron 530 E6550, 4GB memory, Radeon HD2600XT
Thanks again for your help!

Found this on the DATACOLOR site in their SUPPORT CENTER:
Incorrect Color outside Photoshop on Wide Gamut Display
Solution >>I just purchased a Dell 2407 HC display, considered wide gamut and the spyder 3 elite. I've used the spyder 3 to calibrate the monitor. In photoshop whenever I "Save for Web" or "Save as" in the sRGB color space, I wind up with over saturated oranges and reds. I'm needing to save in the sRGB for web work. My working color space is set to sRGB which looks fine when editting in photoshop, but as soon as I save it out of photoshop the reds and oranges are over saturated. I purchased the spyder 3 because of the wide gamut support, is there something I'm missing in calibration?
The display profile is not at fault here. The ICC profile for the display tells any application that uses color management what the color values for the display are. Thus Photoshop, which is using the profile, corrects for the colors on screen, giving correct results. A non-color managed application (such as Internet Explorer for Windows) would not use the profile and thus the colors would be oversaturated on your wide gamut screen. This is not the fault of the profile (that would make the color look wrong in Photoshop, where the profile is being used), but the lack of a profile (which makes the color look wrong in non-color managed applications).
This is the problem with using a Wide Gamut display for viewing in non-color managed applications. A typical gamut display is not color correct in such applications, but is at least approximately correct; a wide gamut display is noticably oversatured in some colors. On the Mac many applications, including web browsers and OS utilities, are color managed, so it is less of an issue than on Windows.
Article Details
Article ID: 723
Created On: 10 Jan 2008 07:31 PM
So if the color is off outside PS, then its not the fault of the profile. My problem is the image is off INSIDE PS, and by the same reasoning, then the profile is at fault. If the profile is to blame, is this a Spyder issue or Vista issue? So far noone seems to know anything including Adobe tech support and Dell. Been waiting 2 wks to hear from the Spyder people.
Would really appreciate some input on this. thanks.

Color management in Save for Web not working

The Save for Web dialog box in the CS6 Beta is ignoring color profiles, so color is not managed. This has not been a problem in previous versions.

The saved output is just fine. I was referring to the images in the Save for Web dialogue
I just checked my settings. CS6 apparently changed my Preview setting from "Use Document Profile" to "Monitor Color." It also changed my Metadata setting. It should not do that!
Restoring the correct Preview setting solved the color management problem, but ONLY for the Preview image. The Original image is still not color managed.
I'm on a wide-gamut monitor, so sRGB images come out looking garish if there's no color profile embedded or it's ignored. That's what's happening here with the Original image in Save for Web. I imported an sRGB image with profile embedded, and it looks just fine in Photoshop while editing. Then I went to Save for Web, with the settings Embed Color Profile, Convert to sRGB, and Preview: Use Document Profile. The JPEG preview too looks just fine with these settings, but the Original looks garish, showing a lack of color management. The color in the two views is showing as completely different, though they both represent the same image with the same color profile embedded.
Going back to CS5, the same image is properly color managed in both Original and Preview. Both images show identical color, as they should.

Color Management Trouble! HP, Lion, CS5 ***!

Hey there,
I've spent the last 6 hours on and off the phone with HP tech support, which is blaming Mac OS Lion and Adobe Creative Suite 5 for the crappy color management that I'm getting out of a new HP Laserjet CP5225.
Can anyone give me some tips to improve my color output?
I can print the same color to a Canon Pixma Pro, a small cheap Epson RGB printer, and an HP Indigo Digital Press, but it comes out too dark and lacking yellow in the mix via printing on the mac.
I have had more problems with color management in my Macs than I had in 15 years of owning PCs. I figure that the solution is probably more complex, with the driver, the Color Sync "utility," and Adobe all getting in the mix to screw up the reliable output of color.
Any tips would be very much appreciated.
HP suggests that I give up the idea of being able to print in CMYK and just try to convert and print everything using an RGB color profile.
I have been writing down settings, changing one at a time, and printing a sample... and so forth... since 3:30 p.m. this afternoon -- and no luck... Good color seems impossible to achieve.
Should I just send back the printer tomorrow and give up now? I just went through a terrible experience with a Konica Minolta Grafx, so maybe I should cut my losses quick on this one.
Any help or suggestions would be terrific.

Hey there,
I've spent the last 6 hours on and off the phone with HP tech support, which is blaming Mac OS Lion and Adobe Creative Suite 5 for the crappy color management that I'm getting out of a new HP Laserjet CP5225.
Can anyone give me some tips to improve my color output?
I can print the same color to a Canon Pixma Pro, a small cheap Epson RGB printer, and an HP Indigo Digital Press, but it comes out too dark and lacking yellow in the mix via printing on the mac.
I have had more problems with color management in my Macs than I had in 15 years of owning PCs. I figure that the solution is probably more complex, with the driver, the Color Sync "utility," and Adobe all getting in the mix to screw up the reliable output of color.
Any tips would be very much appreciated.
HP suggests that I give up the idea of being able to print in CMYK and just try to convert and print everything using an RGB color profile.
I have been writing down settings, changing one at a time, and printing a sample... and so forth... since 3:30 p.m. this afternoon -- and no luck... Good color seems impossible to achieve.
Should I just send back the printer tomorrow and give up now? I just went through a terrible experience with a Konica Minolta Grafx, so maybe I should cut my losses quick on this one.
Any help or suggestions would be terrific.

Vista 64 bit and CS4 and color management

This is a question about Vista 64 bit and CS4 and color management. I scan 4x5 film and sometimes end up with up to or even bigger than 1 GB files. Obviously that needs as much memory as possible. Windows XP is limited in this regard and I am in the market for a new speedy computer which won't force me to stay at a snail's pace. In this month's Shutterbug, David Brooks in his Q&A column says to avoid Vista for color management reasons, but offers no explanation or support for his opinion. He implies one should wait for Windows 7 for some unstated reason. With a calibrated monitor and printer and Photoshop controlling color files sent to the printer, why would Vista be any different or worse than XP? Is he on to something or just pontificating? Does anyone know any reliable info about Windows 7 that would make it worth waiting for?
Thanks.

Zeno Bokor wrote:
Photoshop has direct access to max 3.2gb
On Mac OS X, PS CS4 can use up to 8 GB of RAM, but only directly accesses up to 3.5 GB. (Figures quoted from kb404440.) In using PS CS4 on Mac OS, though, direct Memory Usage maxes out at 3 GB even. If you set usage to 100% (3 GB), then plug-ins (including Camera Raw and filters), as well as actions and scripts, can access RAM above that 3 GB to between about 512 MB and about 768 MB total (seems to vary depending on which filters et al that you are using), leaving the rest up to 4 GB for the Mac OS. If you have more than 4 GB, then the amount of RAM above 4 GB is used by PS as a scratch disk. This increases performance significantly for most things because writing to and reading from the hard drive is much slower than doing so with RAM.
I haven't done the testing for actual RAM usage and such for PS CS4 on Vista 64, and Adobe's documentation is very much lacking in detail, but, based on the statement "If you use files large enough to need more than 4 GB of RAM, and you have enough RAM, all the processing you perform on your large images can be done in RAM, instead of swapping out to the hard disk." from kb404439, it seems that PS would be using RAM in very much the same way as I described above for Mac OS, except that the scratch disk usage in RAM wouldn't be limited to 8 GB (instead to how much you have installed). Has anyone done any performance/load testing to know for sure? I didn't see any such studies published, but I am curious if one has been done.
I will agree that there is a definite performance advantage when using PS CS4 (64-bit) on Vista 64, which I've experienced, especially when working very large compositions.
My initial recommendation to the OP to use Mac was based upon reading those articles about bad color management. As I stated before, I have never experienced that problem, and clearly the views of all that have posted here so far indicate that the problem may not be a real issue. (Perhaps this David Brooks fellow and Steve Upton both like to mess with their computers and broke something in Windows?)

Exporting h.264 and color managment

I'm wondering what everyone that owns the production suite does with color management.
If you open Adobe Bridge....what are you color management settings? The reason I'm asking is that I've got two 2408WFP monitors and I'm using CS3. Everything looks great in Premiere CS3, but when export to h.264 I get horrible contrast results. It really looks over exposed. I've checked my Adobe Media Encoder settings and I'm exporting at 100% with 20,000kbps and it still looks like garbage.
When I play the same footage on a iMac....it looks under exposed to the point I can barely see it.
If this is a monitor calibration issue, how do you recommend I calibrate? What do you use and what are your settings? Also, does anyone else here use a 2408WFP monitor?
Much thanks!

It has to do with default Gamma settings. Mac are 1.8,(until Snow Leopard, which is now 2.2) PC is 2.2
PC's look a little brighter, more washed out compared to MAC. You should get a monitor calibration image from the net, and adjust your monitor.
Here is a link that might help...
http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/osx_22_gamma.html

Color management setting wont stay set?

Running Acrobat Pro 9.4.1 in conjunction with CS5 Design Premium. Not only does the color management setting in Acrobat not change when set and synced from Bridge. The setting wont stick when set directly in Acrobat. Does anybody have a similar issue or a solution? I run Europe prepress 3 in bridge which has no effect on Acrobat but if I select Europe prepress 3 directly in Acrobat it will stay on that setting until I quit Acrobat then when re-launched it will be set to Europe Prepress 2! Any help or explanation much appreciated.

Guys I appreciate your help but nothing is working.
I tried deleting the preferences file and the same thing happened again anyway.
I then uninstalled the whole Creative Suite and deleted all files associated with it and all entries in the Windows Registry related to it.
I then reinstalled everything ( spending the hours it took) and it is doing the same thing again. I can not think of anything that has changed on the machine at all and I have never had this happen before in the years I have been using Premiere.
Everything used to work fine and Captures would go without a hitch even if they took hours as long as the Preferences were set to “None” on Device Control. But now it just won’t stay set, even after reinstalling everything. The Capture Window Device Control will stay set to “none” but not Preferences regardless of what I do.
I tried changing other Preference Settings and they stay changed but not device control. And it is the same regardless of whether the ADVC-300 is on or off. I even tried deactivating the Firewire Port in the Bios just to see what would happen and it made no difference.
Does anyone have any ideas?
My last option is to reformat my drive and reinstall everything from scratch but that will take me a day and a half.
I can not understand what is making it do this when it never did it before.
Here is what I am using:
Premiere Pro CS4 with a Canopus ADVC-300 Capture Box. It is installed via Firewire and goes to the Firewire Port on the Motherboard.
I am using XP Home SP3 on a Core I7 Computer with an Asus motherboard.
If no one has any ideas do me one favor. Go into your own Preferences file and set Device Control to “None”, close the panel and open it again to see if it is still set to none.
It may help me feel a little better about reinstalling all my software and spending the day and a half doing it if I know it is something with my machine and not the program itself.

Safari Color Management

I am running Mac OS X Version 10.4.9 with a dual monitor set up.
Both are Eizo monitors, a Flexscan 1731 and a Coloredge CG 221. Since I've replaced my CRT Barco monitor with the CG221, I've seen huge color differences between Photoshop and Safari.
I finally realized the differences I see between Photoshop and Safari is that my working space is sRGB, while the monitor's profile (which it seems that Safari assigns to the web) is Adobe 1998. Since Eizo's CG221 has a larger gamut than the Barco monitor and my Flexscan S1731 (which are sRGB monitors), the drastic differences between Safari and Photoshop are more apparent on the CG221.
Eizo's solution is to calibrate emulating the sRGB space, which is possible with Color Navigator. But this does not sound like the best solution for me. Why should I clip the monitor profile? This would mean the only way to see my monitor's full gamut is to re-calibrate.
So now my question is, are there any browsers available with color management settings? It'd make sense if I could calibrate my monitor at it's full gamut and have a browser which converts to a working space instead of assigning the monitor profile, or which at least honors embedded profiles.
I must also note Eizo's suggestion of recalibrating to the sRGB space seems incorrect, because even if I worked in Adobe 1998 most webpages would display incorrectly (except my own which would have images with Adobe 1998 embedded). Even when I view Apple's website colors appear oversaturated, especially in skin tones.
Any help and feedback is highly appreciated.

An interesting problem indeed. It sort of emphasizes the lack of color management on the WEB.
The commonly recommended workaround, to calibrate all monitors to something close to sRGB is suddenly outdated when monitors can display a gamut outside of the sRGB range.
To clarify your problem a bit.
Safari uses the monitor color space as working space, always. This is not necessarily a problem, as long as images gets converted into the monitor color space when they are opened. However, this does not happen when the image does not have a color profile. Correct but inconvenient.
In Photoshop you can choose the working space. Best is if the working space is the same as the target space. Thus, if you work with WEB publishing choose sRGB. If you work with printing choose your printers color space etc.
But Photoshop will also have a problem if images does not have a color profile, unless the image has an EXIF tag, indicating that the image is in for instance sRGB color space. Photoshop is intelligent enough to understand this, because most digital cameras produce images without color profile but with the EXIF color space tag. In case there is no color profile, and no EXIF color space tag, Photoshop will, depending on your color preference settings, ask you to assign a colorspace or automatically assign working space, which could be whatever.
There are possible solutions to your problem.
1. If you publish WEB sites and want to browse them correctly, using your very expensive monitor without lobotomizing it's capabilities. Use Safari or other color managed browser and follow the two rules of image publishing for the WEB
Rule 1) Images on the web should be published in sRGB color space (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly in browsers on the MS-Windows platforms, with the exception of Safari, viewing images with a color profile)
Rule 2) Images should have a color profile, in particular the sRGB images (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly on the MacOS platforms. Maybe close to correct if you have calibrated your monitor to PC-gamma)
For a test, go to http://www.gballard.net/psd/golive_pageprofile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
2) If you want to browse WEB sites, created by people who did not follow the second rule, that is most WEB-sites, and by the way, includes parts of the Apple WEB site.
Do the following: In Safari, Safari Menu/Report Bugs to Apple - include the following statement.
Dear Safari development team. Most WEB sites on the internet does not display properly in Safari, due to the fact that most WEB publishers are unaware of that they should include color profiles in their images. Today, Safari effectively disables color management when the color profile is missing, a correct but not very practical approach. In reality, most images published on the WEB are in fact sRGB or close to that but without a color profile. In order to enhance the WEB experience for the vast community of Safari users, could you PLEASE include at least the option in Safari, to "Assume sRGB for WEB colors". Since Safari is already color managed, it should mean only a few lines of code in the Safari application.
I did this, but probably we need a lot of users to complain before it gets fixed. It has been like this for ever, but I really expected it to be fixed in Safari 3.
See also http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5204498&#5204498 and http://www.tomasjonsson.eu for more information
Tomas

LR3 color management issues

Alright, so I'm having some trouble with color spaces and am at the point I'm seeing red and just want to smash my computer. I feel like I understand the basics of color management but for some reason I can't seem to get things to behave. I know certain programs are color managed and can handle different color spaces, and some are not. I will also note that my monitor has been calibrated using a Spyder3Pro.
I like working with sRGB simply because I get the same result on most places on the internet (I know I'm losing gamut but I really don't print too much so it's not a big deal). So I know that LR operates in ProPhoto RGB, the biggest of the main RGB color spaces (sRGB, Adobe RGB, and ProPhoto RGB) and as such shows photos with far more color than can be represented by sRGB. However, whenever I export a photo from LR (be it to JPEG in any of the color spaces, or to edit in PS CS5), the colors are always far more muted than what I see in LR. I have checked the settings in CS5 and even opened the RAW file (with the .xmp editing info) directly in CS5 in ProPhotoRGB and the colors aren't even close to what I see in LR. Additionally I used LR to export the file to JPEG in sRGB, Adobe RGB, and ProPhoto RGB, and when those three files are opened in Photoshop, they look virtually identical. There are minute changes in the histogram between the three files, but they all look the same. However, they appear different when viewed in my browser (Firefox), even though I have set it to color manage. I did notice that there was no color space listed when I looked at the file properties in the Details tab, but the color profile is clearly being embedded as PS asks me if I want to view the image in the working space or the embedded color space of the image. What is going on here?
Screenshot of the same file in LR and PS, being opened in PS using the external editing feature of LR (screenshot pasted and saved in sRGB in PS):
The file in PS converted to sRGB and saved in PS:
The file saved in sRGB from LR:
The file saved in Adobe RGB from LR:
The file saved in ProPhoto RGB from LR:
Additional information that may be useful:
Lightroom 3.6
Camera RAW 6.6
Photoshop CS5.1
Firefox 16.0.1
Monitor calibrated with Spyder3Pro
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Thanks,
Reed
EDIT: After further investigation, it appears that Firefox is treating these images as images without a color space, yet somehow Photoshop and Windows Photo Viewer recognize the color space. So I think I have two concerns: 1) why are my photos drastically different between LR and PS, and 2) how are the images being saved from LR lacking the color space information needed by Firefox yet still retaining it for PS?

ReedJ12 wrote:
It must be embedding the profiles somewhere because when I open the JPEGs in CS5, it recognizes that they're not sRGB. I made these simply by going in LR and clicking on the standard Export button. No external plugins have been installed.
Reed
In that case, were the images in the original post, the result of a "save" operation inside CS5? If so, could they have lost their colourspace tagging at that point, due to something in your Photoshop JPG saving settings (or your "save for web and devices" settings)?
That could be quickly confirmed by uploading a (say) ProPhoto exported image, for comparison, as directly exported from LR - that is, which has never been into Photoshop.
You could also compare this youself against the version you uploaded, side by side in PS - if the one that has just come fresh from LR still has its colourspace tagging, and the other has lost its colourspace tagging, then even though the RGB numbers inside the image may be identical, PS will be interpreting the meaning of the numbers differently in each case - and will therefore display them as different, just as colourspace-aware browsers such as IE8 are doing, for other people viewing your examples online.

Help - color management issue, sunburns! (with a calibrated monitor)!

I love Lightroom and its workflow, its unlike anything of its kind. However, lately (since I first started using it) I've seen a problem related to color management on my computer (I believe) and hope someone out there can shed some light.
After importing JPG pictures into Lightroom and making modifications to them, I am getting *completely* different results once I export them (as sRGB, as I'll be sharing them via web). All of the pictures are coming much more saturated (for a lack of a better description).
Here is what I am getting (see brief descriptions below each pic): http://www.bachmannphoto.com/test/couple.html
I'd be very curious as to how they are showing up on your (calibrated/uncalibrated) screen(s), but the 1st and 3rd pics are showing up as 'realistic' on my PC, while the middle (exported from Lightroom) is showing up as too much saturation and even reddish push, as though the couple got hit with sunburns.
Another example of this result here: http://www.bachmannphoto.com/test/dog_chair.html. Though in this case, the picture in the middle actually looks better, it doesn't change the fact that I am getting very different output than what I see in Lightroom (or in photoshop without the embedded profile).
I am thinking this is a problem with color management settings on my PC. First guess would have been "monitor calibration"... but as mentioned in the title, I calibrated my monitors (I have two Dell 1905FPs... not great for accurate color representation, but they do the job) repeatedly, using Spyder2 Pro.
What pushes me to think this is the following (represented here http://www.bachmannphoto.com/test/couple_original.html ):
Before making any modifications to the imported sRGB picture - in other words, importing the picture straight from the camera memory card into Lightroom and then exporting it back (again, without making any modifications to it) - the pictures, both the original and the exported which still look the same and are kept sRGB, look completely different in Lightroom then if I was viewing them in a non-color managed software on my PC, such as the default windows picture viewer.
If my LCD panels are properly calibrated, should I not be more or less seeing the same image colors, whether I'm viewing them through windows, or through Lightroom (or Photoshop along with the embedded sRGB profile)? What gives??
Jesse
PS. I *more* than appreciate anyone taking time to respond to this post. I've been up for nights now trying to understand/fix this.
If it's any help, I have the different version (but original and exported) files here:
original file:
http://www.bachmannphoto.com/test/couple_original.JPG
Original file, imported into Lightroom and then exported back out w/o any modifications (sRGB): http://www.bachmannphoto.com/test/couple_lightroom-nomidification_exported_srgb.jpg
Original file, imported into Lightroom, MODIFIED and then exported back out (sRGB):
http://www.bachmannphoto.com/test/couple_lightroom-modified_exported_srgb.jpg

Exiftool reports the original contains the following EXIF tags:
Interoperability Index : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version : 0100
The nomidification_exported version does not have those lines, but contains the actual sRGB profile:
Profile CMM Type : Lino
Profile Version : 2.1.0
Profile Class : Display Device Profile
Color Space Data : RGB
Profile Connection Space : XYZ
Profile Date Time : 1998:02:09 06:49:00
Profile File Signature : acsp
Primary Platform : Microsoft Corporation
CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer : IEC
Device Model : sRGB
Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent : Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator : HP
Profile ID : 0
Profile Copyright : Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Profile Description : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Media White Point : 0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point : 0 0 0
Red Matrix Column : 0.43607 0.22249 0.01392
Green Matrix Column : 0.38515 0.71687 0.09708
Blue Matrix Column : 0.14307 0.06061 0.7141
Device Mfg Desc : IEC http://www.iec.ch
Device Model Desc : IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB
Viewing Cond Desc : Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1
Viewing Cond Illuminant : 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089
Viewing Cond Surround : 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179
Viewing Cond Illuminant Type : D50
Luminance : 76.03647 80 87.12462
Measurement Observer : CIE 1931
Measurement Backing : 0 0 0
Measurement Geometry : Unknown (0)
Measurement Flare : 0.999 %
Measurement Illuminant : D65
Technology : Cathode Ray Tube Display
Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
The modified_exported version likewise does not have the interoperability index tag but contains the actual sRGB profile:
Profile CMM Type : Lino
Profile Version : 2.1.0
Profile Class : Display Device Profile
Color Space Data : RGB
Profile Connection Space : XYZ
Profile Date Time : 1998:02:09 06:49:00
Profile File Signature : acsp
Primary Platform : Microsoft Corporation
CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer : IEC
Device Model : sRGB
Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent : Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator : HP
Profile ID : 0
Profile Copyright : Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Profile Description : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Media White Point : 0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point : 0 0 0
Red Matrix Column : 0.43607 0.22249 0.01392
Green Matrix Column : 0.38515 0.71687 0.09708
Blue Matrix Column : 0.14307 0.06061 0.7141
Device Mfg Desc : IEC http://www.iec.ch
Device Model Desc : IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB
Viewing Cond Desc : Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1
Viewing Cond Illuminant : 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089
Viewing Cond Surround : 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179
Viewing Cond Illuminant Type : D50
Luminance : 76.03647 80 87.12462
Measurement Observer : CIE 1931
Measurement Backing : 0 0 0
Measurement Geometry : Unknown (0)
Measurement Flare : 0.999 %
Measurement Illuminant : D65
Technology : Cathode Ray Tube Display
Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)

Color Management in FW CS4?

Seems I read an interesting article recently on the subject
of color management in Illustrator and how its lacking in FW
constitutes a major oversight and flaw in the application. Will cs4
be implementing something in the way of AI? (Though certainky the
latter program developed this in response to print media
demands?...)

Linda Rathgeber wrote:
> Paevo Kelley wrote:
>> Seems I read an interesting article recently on the
subject of color
>> management in Illustrator and how its lacking in FW
constitutes a
>> major oversight and flaw in the application.
>
> I disagree with that. Since browsers cannot read color
profiles, and
> Fireworks was developed specifically for Web graphics,
then color
> management would be kind of pointless.
>
It's not even a question of browsers understanding color
profiles. How
many users out there calibrate and balance their monitors?
Color
profiles are great for a controlled reproduction process like
commercial
printing. But that's the key - it's a monitored and
controlled
environment. We have no control over the user's monitor
settings.
Now if the concern is how FW handles the color of a file that
is in
another color mode (CMYK or LAB for example), the new FW beta
seems to
be handling color better. It still converts them to RGB.
There is still
a difference in a CMYK file opened in FW (seems to be mostly
in
saturation and contrast), when compared with the same file in
PS, but
the LAB file I tested seemed pretty darn close in both app's,
if not
identical.
HTH
Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community
Expert:.
http://www.communityMX.com/
CommunityMX - Free Resources:
http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm
.:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
Adobe Community Expert
http://tinyurl.com/2a7dyp
See my work on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_babbage/

OpenGL and ICM Color Management

I'm looking into ways to move my plugins to the use of OpenCL and OpenGL to take advantage of the power in modern GPUs.
Specifically, with the Windows GDI, ICM color management can be set up to be done automatically through calls like BitBlt(), and in fact I do this.
Can someone here point me in the right direction to learn how one might best handle color spaces when using OpenGL in place of the older Windows GDI calls?
Thanks!
-Noel

Thanks. That's what I was starting to infer from the lack of OpenGL and ICC color management information together.
-Noel

PS, Epson Color Management in OSX 10.6

I know this is a problem way from way back but I thought I would revisit. It's clear that OSX 10.6 broke color management between Photoshop (PS)and my Epson R800. Since Epson no longer considers an R800 as a current printer I've resigned myself that there will be no new drivers that will fix this.
Before I buy a new printer, my question to the Mac community is: does anyone have PS (CS5) controlled color management working with an Epson R1900 or R2800 on an OSX 10.6.4 system? If not is there an equivalent quality-output Canon or HP model that does support this. I prefer Epson but would consider switching. Their support of Mac is truly atrocious. I don't find printer controlled color management to be good enough. I got such beautiful pictures with CS4 and 10.5
Thanks for any help and advice

From what I've been able to read SL 10.6 broke a critical conversion between PS and the printer.
Hmm, that actually isn't possible. Photoshop doesn't give a whit which printer you're going to. You can still choose "Photoshop Manages Color" in the print dialogue.
Your issue may have been lack of a 10.6 print driver for your R800, because even when you choose to let PS manage color, you must then be able to choose "No color management" in the print driver's dialogue box so ColorSync isn't applied to the image twice.
You can also tell Photoshop to let the printer manage color. Then when when you go into Print Settings, you choose ColorSync and choose your printer profile there. The result should be identical.
What is different in Snow Leopard is that the print dialogue does not come up after clicking Print in Photoshop. It's now all done in the same place. It's under the Print Settings button of the same dialogue box in PS.
For instance, if I choose "Photoshop Manages Color" to a Xerox 6280DN, then I have no color choices in Print Settings. They are automatically grayed out. If I tell PS to let the printer manage color, then I can control the printer's color from the Print Settings.
It's actually a better setup since it prevents you from applying color settings in both places.
Again for me the critical point is to have PS manage my color that always got me the best prints.
It kind of doesn't matter which one does the ColorSync chores, as long as you use the same printer profile. Controlling the color from PS though does allow you to choose rendering intent, and whether or not to use Black Point Compensation. Something not many print drivers have. Usually only a way to choose your printer profile.

Color management for web and print.

Hi there. I would like to post my images and have them print ready for clients. When I read about both of these I find one thing for web and one thing for print. I don't want to edit them twice. What would you suggest for easiest workflow? I like to post the images in an online gallery for my clients and if I really like them maybe use on my homepage. Do I have to edit twice or what is the optimal setting for a photographer. I do mostly portraits --family, baby, couples, etc.
I am pretty well versed in actual editing processes but my understanding in this portion is still lacking. I am trying prophoto rgb on photos today, but will this compromise my online quality?

brwmmw wrote:
…I knew of this option but did not know if it was optimal quality…
You define the quality of the saved image in the Save for Web and Devices dialog box.
brwmmw wrote:
…I have just been… using same files for web and print. I wanted to increase quality across the board in print and web…
That is absurd! (Sorry.) By doing that you are generating unconscionably and unnecessarily large image files. You're clients won't like that.
Remember that you have no control over how anyone sees your images on the web. Something like 97% of Internet users are running non-color-managed web browsers and uncalibrated monitor.
You and you're clients are best served when you stick to the lowest common denominator, namely sRGB images, for web.
brwmmw wrote:
…What mode do you use for prints?…
Personally, I like to stay in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB when I print my images myself. If sending them to a pro lab, I discussed it with the lab techs. But I have gathered a lot of experience by now. One really has to know exactly what one's doing to edit in ProPhoto RGB and stay in that color space. If sending my images to a cheap lab like Costco, I stick to 8-bit tagged images that I soft-proof with the specific printer profile that will be used by the local store.
You should—and probably do—know that ProPhoto RGB has a very wide gamut that includes colors that cannot be printed by many printers, and it's up to you to compensate for that. If you run into problems with ProPhoto RGB consider converting to Adobe RGB for print. Make sure the printer drivers that will be used to print actually support 16-bit printing, otherwise convert to 8-bit.
Since you're a pro, I would warmly recommend you watch the video tutorials comprising the "From Camera to Print - Fine Art Printing" series by Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann, that are/were available for download from the Luminous Landscape. They're working on a new 2011 edition, but the 2008 edition was just superb. Best $35 or so I've spent in a long time.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/camera-print.shtml
Wo Tai Lao Le (no connection to Adobe or Schewe/Reichmnan/Luminous_Landscape.)
我太老了

Premiere color management, or lack thereof?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for