Soft Proofing with Adobe RGB

I am experimenting with soft proofing various sunset images. The problem I'm seeing when I soft proof the images in Photoshop using the Adobe RGB profile is that the oranges and magentas in the sunset turn yellowish. Can someone please explain why this is happening. I admit that some of these images are coming from the internet and have no embedded profile. I have always thought that the Adobe RGB profile had a larger color space so I'm not sure why I'm getting the obvious changes in the sunset colors when switching between sRGB and Adobe RGB.

With a standard monitor everything you see on screen is already soft proofed to sRGB. That's all it can reproduce. So soft proofing to Adobe RGB makes no sense. It's beyond the monitor's capabilities.
Even if you have a wide gamut monitor soft proofing to Adobe RGB makes no sense. You'd need a monitor that reproduced considerably more than Adobe RGB (which doesn't exist), and a file in an even larger space such as ProPhoto.
If you see a difference, you have "Preserve RGB numbers" checked in Proof Setup (which you normally shouldn't). This is the proof equivalent of Assign Profile - IOW how it will look if you assign Adobe RGB as opposed to Convert to Profile, which is what you normally do and which will preserve color appearance.
The other possible explanation is a rather evasive bug in Photoshop, reported from time to time. Sometimes people see a color shift when converting to the very same profile as the file already is. I can't reproduce that, so I can't give any more details.

Similar Messages

Soft-Proofing with .icc color profiles

Hello!
I'm currently working on a book in InDesign. I've calibrated my monitor with X-rite, and have installed an .icc profile from my outside printer (Blurb Books). Of course when I use it to soft-proof, I see a change on my monitor, so if I dion't like what I see (how it will print), I would have to go back to my working space and make changes, etc and keep rechecking. This seems so weird to me yet nowhere in all the forums and internet have I run across an answer to my question:
Why not just work entirely in this .icc profile so one doesn't have to go back and forth? You'd see immediately what you're going to get, even though it may not look as pretty on the monitor set in another color space?
It seems so obvious to me that I know I must be missing something here (as I usually do the obvious), as no-one has addressed it that I can find, anywhere, even Blurb support. They don't even understand what I'm asking!
thanks!

In fact, that is one perfectly valid method of working, and I would not have a problem at all using that profile as the working space in ID (I have a number of printer supplied profiles that I rotate, depending onthe destination of the job). But there's a downside to working on images in a device-specific output space. It limits your ability to use the same image in multiple output scenarios, and many (most) output profiles have a smaller gamut (sometimes significantly smaller) than a device-independent RGB space like Adobe RGB, so you lose some colors. That's going to happen no matter what when you convert for output, but if you do your editing and save in the output space, those losses are permanent, even if you later want to ooutput on a different device with larger gamut capability. Profile-to-profile conversion never adds new colors.

Colours wrong when RAW file with Adobe RGB profile printed from iPhoto '08

I've taken some photos on my Nikon D300 with the colourspace set to Adobe RGB. These import and display fine in iPhoto '08 but when printed it looks like the printer (Epson R2400 with the Epson 6.12 driver) is using the sRGB colourspace. The only option I can find relating to colour, is the Color matching dialogue which gives the option of Colorsync or Epson Color Controls. I've tried both with the same results. Preview shows the profile of the .nef file to be Adobe RGB (1998).
Has anyone any ideas of what I need to change?

AndyMn:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. Most inkjet printers are geared for the sRGB profile. The Adobe profile is used by professional printers. Apple's services also recommend the sRGB profile. You need to reassign the sRGB or sRGBIEC1966-2.1 profile. I'm not sure about the raw file but you can use the ColorSync Utility to assign that profile to the file.
I have an Applescript that will apply the profile to files or folder of files dropped on it. I'm not sure if it will work on RAW files but it does on jpgs and tiffs. You can download it from Toad's Cellar. It takes about 6 seconds per file but does not apply any additional jpeg compression to jpg files.
Assigning the profile is considered better than the Applescript way but can only be done one at a time. You can test each method and see what gives you the best results.
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 6 and 7 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.≤br>
Note: There now an Automator backup application for iPhoto 5 that will work with Tiger or Leopard.

Display profiles and soft proofing Windows RGB / Monitor RGB

This might have asked before, but I did not find any definite answer for this. Sorry this gets a bit long.
Short question:
What's the difference between softproofing with Windows RGB and Monitor RGB targets? I see differences in my image between these targets.
Long question(s):
Here's some reasoning.. let me know when I go wrong.
I have hardware calibrated my display Spyder 3 elite to sRGB standard. I have understood that the generated display profile contains a LUT table that affects gamma values for each RGB component, so that affects both gamma and color temperature. That table is loaded into video card when Windows starts. In addition to the LUT table, the display profile contains what? Probably information on what color space the display has been calibrated to. Does that matches directly with the LUT table information, but may deviate from sRGB in the case my monitor cannot reproduce sRGB 100%?
Now if I have image that that is in sRGB, but the embedded sRGB profile has been stripped away, should any non color management aware image viewer show the colors properly, if it is assumed that 1) my monitor can handle full sRGB space and 2) my monitor was succesfully calibrated to sRGB and the LUT table has been loaded into video card?
Or does it still require a color management aware program to show the image, which implies that the LUT table information alone is not enough and the display profile contains some extra information that is needed to show the image correctly? I would think this is true, as I needed to turn on color management in Canon Zoom Browser to see images in it the same way as in Photoshop.
Now to the original question, what's the difference in Photoshop when soft proofing with Windows RGB and Monitor RGB targets
I read from www.gballard.net that
Photoshop can effectively "SoftProof" our web browser color:
Photoshop: View> Proof SetUp> Windows RGB
Photoshop's Soft Proof screen preview here simulates how unmanaged applications, web browsers, will display the file on 2.2 gamma monitors, based on the sRGB profile. If the file is based on sRGB and our monitor gamma is 2.2 and D/65 6500 degrees Kelvin, we should see very little shift here, which is the goal.
Photoshop: View> Proof SetUp> Monitor RGB
THIS IS WHERE the color-brightness-saturation problem will repeat consistantly.
Soft Proofing Monitor RGB here strips-ignores the embedded ICC profile and Assigns-Assumes-Applies the Monitor profile or color space.
The color and density changes seen here show the difference between the monitor profile and the source profile sRGB.
I'm not sure how to read that. Assume here that my monitor has been calibrated to sRGB and the PS working space sRGB. Do in both cases photoshop strip away color profile from the image at first? What happens after that? Does in Windows RGB case Photoshop pass the color values as they are to display? What does it do in "Monitor RGB" case then? Does it assign my monitor profile to the image? If it does, does there also happen conversion from one color space to another? In either one conversion there must happen as the soft proofing results are different. Does either one cause "double profiling" to the image as the monitor is already calibrated?
Thanks

Windows defaults to sRGB if you don't calibrate your monitor so untagged sRGB files should display (more or less) correctly in applications that don't know about color management on systems with uncalibrated monitors.
When proofing against Windows RGB you're proofing against sRGB, it will show you how applications that don't know about color management on an uncalibrated monitor will show the image. This is what you proof against if you want to see how the image will display in web browsers.
When you proof against Monitor RGB, Photoshop will assign your monitor's icc profile to the image which tends to be utterly useless most of the time.

Open with External Editor Profile sRGB instead of Adobe RGB

Hi,
I know in the export presets I can adjust what profile aperture will use. But what about when I open with External Editor. I like doing this because I can open my image in PhotoShop make my adjustments then save it and have aperture manage my files. But when I do this it opens the file with Adobe RGB, my lab and I sometimes want Adobe RGB. How can I change this without exporting the file and reimporting the file. Thanks.

Aperture uses a color space larger than AdobeRGB and sRGB. When an image is sent to Photoshop is converted to a 16bit AdobeRGB PSD file in order to get the largest color space to work with.
sRGB would be necessary when exporting to the web and/or send it to a printer that requieres that color profile, and that's why you have it in the export presets.

Rendering intent when displaying, exporting or soft proofing?

I am trying to make use of soft proofing to adjust my images for a given output device for which I have ICC profiles. The two profiles I am playing with are for a Lambda and a Fuji Frontier. The Lambda working space almost fits within Adobe RGB, it exceeds it in only a few places but is noticeably smaller for a number of other colors. The Frontier working space is for most colors a bit smaller than the Lambda and about equal for only a small number of colors. The Frontier working space would also almost fit into sRGB (to give you an impression of its size).
When soft proofing with Aperture, dark greens desaturate more with the larger Lambda working space than with Frontier one. If the rendering intent were relative colorimetric, colors should be clipped more and limited by the smaller working space of the Frontier. If perceptual is used then colors would in general be somewhat more compressed (ie, desaturated) with the smaller Frontier working space. But I see rather the opposite. In short, neither explanation makes sense.
So I tried exporting from Aperture into Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB hoping that both would be big enough to contain most of the internal gamut of Aperture in order not to require much compression or clipping when converting from the internal color space of Aperture (I saw no difference between Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB in the exported files, so I guess both are large enough for my purposes). And I then converted/soft proofed these files from Photoshop into my two output profiles. More options (different rendering intents, black point compensation) but none seemed to really match what Aperture was soft proofing. I still have a lot of ideas what to try out but if anybody could shed some light on rendering intents and soft proofing with Aperture, it would be very much appreciated.
(A related question, what rendering intent is used when converting colors, let's say defined in the Lab space in Photoshop, to the screen? I guess this is defined in the monitor profile, which in turn is created by the monitor calibration software, and therefore might depend on the latter. I would guess some kind of perceptual, but how the colors are really fitted and converted from the larger Lab color space into the smaller monitor one might very noticeably been different calibration software and will be different again for the monitor profile supplied by Apple.)

I went on about this a little more scientific by creating an image with three rectangles: red, blue and green.
All of them are 100%, e.g. (255, 0, 0). Colorspace: ProPhoto RGB.
Results when exporting the images to AdobeRGB and sRGB, concentrating on the reds:
- sRGB looks very washed out
- AdobeRGB looks a bit washed out
- Original ProPhoto has so much red that it almost drives me nuts
Now, I would really expect similar results when activiating soft proofing.
But when selecting either AdobeRGB or sRGB, the reds always drive me nuts.
There is just no difference at all to the original ProPhoto image!
Conclusion 1: Dorin, you were right, previews are in AdobeRGB. What I saw in the reds was the difference between ProPhoto and AdobeRGB. Somehow my screen seems to have extreme reds (calibrated recently with an X-Rite ColorMunki Display).
Conclusion 2: Soft proofing with AdobeRGB and sRGB really DOES NOT WORK!

Soft proofing and Out of Gamut warning

I like to use Blurb for a perfect photo book. I am an amateur photographer but like the most of my pictures on paper.
What's the perfect workflow for soft proofing ?
A friend of me has calibrated my screen (Thunderbolt Apple screen).
My current methode :
I take a picture in RAW with AdobeRGB profile setting, i adjust a few parameters in Lightroom and then go to Photoshop and start de soft proofing with the Blurb-ICC profile.
The result with soft proofing is like there's a white mist over the picture. Then i try to optimize this with various parameters.
When i try the soft proofing with the Blurb ICC profile + out of Gamut warning option .... there are many colors out of gamut .
My second methode :
When i import the raw picture in photoshop cc and i convert the picture to the Blurb profile, then there are no out of gamut colors but everything is in CMYK.
Is this a good way for perfect photo books in Blurb ?
Or must i ignore the out of gamut colors ?
Is it better to make my pictures in sRGB ?
When i want to save the end result in Photoshop cc ( jpeg for Blurb ) must i enclose the Blurb ICC (when in CMYK) , Adobe RGB or sRGB profile (when in RGB) ?
Please help me make a perfect photobook
Mario

Since I don't know what "Blurb" is, I'm going to assume that's your printing service somewhere, and that they have provided you with their target printer profile.
What you describe under current method is absolutely normal, expected behavior. Adobe RGB simply is a much larger color space than whatever this Blurb profile is.
If you care to let me know how or where I can get a hold of this Blurb profile, I can in a matter of seconds prepare an illustration of how the two profiles compare to each other. From where I sit, it would appear you're throwing away a lot of image quality by using Blurb.
There are two wacky ways of getting around your seeing the out of gamut warnings. The first is not to soft-proof at all. (Duh! ) The other one is an unorthodox workflow which works just fine PROVIDED you are aware that the image files as an end product are only good for Blurb and for no other purpose, and that is to set your WORKING COLOR SPACE from the get go to the Blurb profile. Of course that is not the recommended or even kosher workflow. It is only a workaround to the deficiencies of this Blurb profile.
I cannot comment on your "second method" until I know more about this Blurb phenomenon. If they print on a CMYK press, then they are throwing away a lot of colors, even if you send them images in sRGB. Nothing you can do about that.
The one thing I can say is that if the outfit doing the printing is the one that sent you the profile, then they will know how to deal with an sRGB file. The profile they sent you is just what their printing process uses. No need to attach a copy of their own profile.

Nikon Adobe RGB vs Lightroom Adobe RGB - help me out

As a part of a general color management makeover on my system I've been looking at the softproffing in lightroom. I'm puzzled by the fact that a D800 RAW shot in Adobe RGB (i.e. the color space on the camera is set to Adobe RGB ) shows out of Gamut in Lightroom with a destination color space of Adobe RGB. The picture control in LR is set to that set on the Camera - Neutral. I'm also puzzled by the fact that the Monitor (also set to Adobe RGB and profiled for Adobe RGB ) shows Gamut warnings as well under soft proofing. I was expecting that a RAW shot in Adobe RGB would not show gamut warnings for the same color space set as a destination.
Where am I going wrong ?

"The color space you have set on the camera has no effect on the raw file that will only affect the jpeg file created by the camera and also the embedded thumbnail."
Ah ! that explains it ! So in lightroom the raw file is in the ProPhoto space and in some cases will exceed the Monitor Gamut. I guess I can test this by shooting a test JPG with Adobe RGB specified & import it to Lightroom to see if the Monitor Gamut is exceeded.
"In addition "Adobe RGB " is a working color space and not a "Monitor Profile" you need to use a hardware device like i1 Eye One to create an appropriate monitor profile."
Thanks, I'm aware of this - I have in fact produced a monitor profile using a Spyder 4 - the Monitor is supposed to cater for Adobe RGB & I have profiled it as such. My confusion arose from thinking that the Nikon would apply the Adobe RGB space to the RAW file.
Many thanks for clearing this up.
J

Soft proofing CMYK in LR 5.2?

ACR 8.1 allows CC users to soft proof in CMYK and LAB color spaces. LR 5.2 will have ACR 8.2 capabilities, so will we be able to soft proof in these spaces as well?

What a shame. The only book vendor option we have from within LR is Blurb, which uses CMYK printers and provides a CMYK profile for soft proofing. The only way to soft proof with this profile, however, is to use Photoshop, but you then convert back to RGB when you return to LR, so thre is no point of going through that routine.
Clearly Adobe recognizes the importance of soft proofing, and put that capability into LR. Clearly Adobe recognizes that many LR users would like to produce books, and put that capability into LR. Somehow Adobe failed to connect the dots and did not provide the capability to softproof book projects being sent to the only print vendor available in the book module.
What exactly is Jeff's reply saying? Jeff says it "won't" happen, which might mean that it could happen, but for some reason Adobe has decided that having this capability in LR would not be beneficial to Adobe in some way. I can't imagine how CMYK capability in LR would affect sales of other Adobe products, so that explanation seems unlikely.
Perhaps Adobe thinks that LR users would be confused by having the CMYK space available to use. However, we have the option of chosing from among three RGB color spaces now, so how would a fourth space be a problem for us? Besides, I don't think that LR users are less capable than Photoshop users (in fact, there is a lot of overlap), so if it can be understood in PS it can be understood in LR. Hence, that explanation also seems unlikely.
Perhaps Adobe is trying to maintain a clear distinction between its "professional" products, which have greater techincal capabilites, and its, for lack of a better term, "consumer" products, which do not need to be so capable. LR doesn't get CMYK because it is intended for customers who don't need it (although they send us to a book printer that only uses CMYK printers). Of course, Adobe realizes that many LR users are professional photographers who have prints made in high-end print shops that use CMYK printers, just like Blurb does, so that explanation is just as unlikely as the first two.
Perhaps Jeff misspoke, and meant to say that it can't happen, not that it won't happen. That is, that there is some technical reason why LR can't use the CMYK color space. This seems very, very unlikely, although if somebody is aware of such limitations to LR, perhaps they could explain them to us.
The bottom line at this point, unless there is more information on why LR can't have CMYK capabilities, is that Adobe has made the decision, and that is that, and we have to live with it. Sort of like the Creative Cloud.

Printing, Soft Proofing & Color Management in LR 1.2: Two Questions

Printing, Soft Proofing, and Color Management in LR 1.2: Two Questions
There are 2 common ways to set color management in Adobe CS2:
1. use managed by printer setting or,
2. use managed by Adobe CS2 program.
I want to ask how Color Management for Adobe LR 1.2 differs from that in CS2?
As is well known, Color Management by printer requires accurate printer profiles including specific model printer, types of ink and specific paper. It is clear that this seems to work well for LR 1.2 when using the Printer module.
Now lets consider what happens one tries to use Color Management by Adobe LR 1.2. Again, as is well known, Color Management by printer must be turned off so that only one Color Management system is used. It has been my experience that LR 1.2 cant Color Manage my images correctly. Perhaps someone with more experience can state whether this is true or what I might be doing to invalidate LR 1.2 Color Management.
Specifically, I cant use Soft Proofing to see how my images are changed on my monitor when I try to use the edit functions in LR 1.2. Martin Evening states in his text, The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book that it is not possible to display the results of the rendered choices (Perceptual or Relative) on the display monitor. While it is not clear in Evenings text if this applies to LR 1.2, my experience would suggest that it still applies to the 1.2 update even though the publication date of his book preceded this update.
Can someone with specific knowledge of Adobe LR 1.2 confirm that Color Management and Soft Proofing with LR 1.2 hasnt been implemented at the present.
The writer is a retired physicist with experience in laser physics and quantum optics.
Thanks,
Hersch Pilloff

Hersch,
since just like me, you're a physicist (I am just a little further from retirement ;) ) I'll explain a little further. computer screens (whether they are CRT or LCD) are based on emission (or transmission) of three colors of light in specific (but different for every screen) shades of red, green, and blue. This light stimulates the receptors in your eye which are sensitive to certain but different bands of red, green and blue as the display emits, making your brain think it sees a certain color instead of a mix of red green and blue. Printers however, produce color by modifying the reflection of the paper by absorbing light. Their color mixing operates completely differently than displays. When you throw all colors of ink on the paper, you get black (the mixing is said to be subtractive) instead of white as you get in displays (the mixing there is additive). The consequence of this is that in the absence of an infinite number of inks you cannot produce all the colors you can display on a monitor using a printer and vice versa. This can be easily seen if you compare a display's profile to a printer profile in a program such as Colorsync utility (on every mac) or
Gamut vision. Typically printers cannot reproduce a very large region in the blue but most displays on the other hand cannot make saturated yellows and cyans.
Here is a flattened XY diagram of a few color spaces and a typical printer profile to illustrate this. Most displays are close to sRGB, but some expensive ones are close to adobeRGB, making the possible difference between print and screen even worse.
So, when the conversion to the printer's profile is made from your source file (which in Lightroom is in a variant of prophotoRGB), for a lot of colors, the color management routine in the computer software has to make an approximation (the choice of perceptual and relative colorimetric determine what sort of approximation is made). Soft proofing allows you to see the result of this approximation and to correct specific problems with it.

Soft Proofing: may not work on my screen

First of all: Thanks so much for implementing soft proofing! Especially in such an easy way! I was really hoping you'd do it exactly like that.
Anyway, I've got a wide gamut monitor (Thinkpad W520 laptop screen). And I've got an image with a lot of strongly saturated reds (PowerShot S95, RAW).
Now, if I switch between Loup View and Develop View, I can see a huge difference in the reds because the Loup preview is sRGB (medium quality). I can also see the same difference when exporting to sRGB vs. exporting to AdobeRGB.
However, if I engage soft proofing and select sRGB, the image still looks the same. Only the little preview in the upper left changes to what I would expect.
That's not exactly what I would expect ^^
On the other hand, if I select a custom profile (AdoramaPix, lustre paper), the whole rig seems to work.
More information:
- Windows 7, 64 bit with 64 LR4 beta
- Whether relative or perceptual doesn't matter
- Only seems to affect sRGB
- The image shows very, very clear differences between sRGB and AdobeRGB on my monitor, so it's definitely not a visual problem on my end
- The histogram changes when switching between sRGB and AdobeRGB in soft proofing mode
- I really cannot see the slightest change in the image when switching
I hope you can find a fix or point out what I'm doing wrong because I would really like to use soft proofing for images published on the web, which is of course in sRGB.

I went on about this a little more scientific by creating an image with three rectangles: red, blue and green.
All of them are 100%, e.g. (255, 0, 0). Colorspace: ProPhoto RGB.
Results when exporting the images to AdobeRGB and sRGB, concentrating on the reds:
- sRGB looks very washed out
- AdobeRGB looks a bit washed out
- Original ProPhoto has so much red that it almost drives me nuts
Now, I would really expect similar results when activiating soft proofing.
But when selecting either AdobeRGB or sRGB, the reds always drive me nuts.
There is just no difference at all to the original ProPhoto image!
Conclusion 1: Dorin, you were right, previews are in AdobeRGB. What I saw in the reds was the difference between ProPhoto and AdobeRGB. Somehow my screen seems to have extreme reds (calibrated recently with an X-Rite ColorMunki Display).
Conclusion 2: Soft proofing with AdobeRGB and sRGB really DOES NOT WORK!

Color profile (sRGB Vs. Adobe RGB)

Hello,
As I am struggling with choosing the 'right' color profile for my photo's (either sRGB or Adobe RGB) I was wondering what your opinion of this subject is. I have searched the internet for the information about this subject, but the forums/answers/information couldn't give me enough satisfaction.
For editing photo's I am using Adobe Photoshop, for my library I use iPhoto. Some photo's are uploaded to sites as www.facebook.com. Sometimes I order a photo book via iPhoto.
Because there are pros and cons for both sRGB and Adobe RGB I am not sure which profile I have to choose. I would like to choose one format, since this will standardize my library.
Looking forward to your opinion.
Best Regards,
Jelle

Larry & Terence,
Did you do any on-screen testing or proofing? All modern browsers support ICC profiles and should show improvement with Adobe RGB in certain color ranges (NOT just Facebook).
Apple products aren't "designed" for sRGB. sRGB is a standard developed by Hewlett Packard and Microsoft (and I think we all can agree those aren't Apples best friends). sRGB is the default for most Cameras and SmartPhones, that doesn't mean it's the best.
Most monitors sold in the last 5 years have wider gamut support than the sRGB.
Article "Can the entire sRGB color gamut be displayed on today's LCD monitors?"
http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-bad-working-space-profile.html
"sRGB was created to match the display characteristics of consumer-grade CRT monitors manufactured in the1990s." "LCDs use a completely different technology to make colors..." "All wide gamut monitors by definition can show more greens, yellows, and cyans than sRGB."
Apple even suggests "Adobe RGB offers a wider gamut than sRGB, and is usually a better choice, if available." in this article:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2026
iPhoto 6 and newer have support for ColorSync profiles, older versions may not work with Adobe RGB and could cause the color to look worse. If a profile isn't present, or isn't supported iPhoto assigns Camera RGB. Complaints about "dark" color from iPhoto are more than 5 years old.

Soft proof blurb profile

I want to soft proof with the Blurb ICC profile. In LR4.0 beta I can only select from attached printers or display profiles.
OS10.6.8, I have stored the Blurb profile in root/Library?ColorSync/Profiles.
In Photoshop the Blurb profile is an option, so that location works for Photoshop (version 12.1)

Austerberry wrote:
That does answr the question, but what I wanted to do was to soft proof the output of the Blurb printers.
You can’t for several reasons. One, LR only handles an RGB path and the output device here (an Indigo) is a CMYK device. You could soft proof in Photoshop which of course supports RGB and CMYK.
But the other issue is, the ICC profile Blurb provides is a generic one that does not describe all the print conditions (all possible paper and print behaviors) so even if LR could use the profile, the soft proof would be inaccurate and of little use.
Third, if any print provider demands output in say sRGB (which is what LR feeds to Blurb), then a user has no control over the actual conversion process (control of Rendering intent, pretty darn important, Black Point Compensation etc). So in such workflows, having a profile you can’t use, being forced to send sRGB is kind of pointless.
What can you do? Well until Blurb in this specific case provides CMYK profiles you can actually use for conversions for all their possible print processes, nothing. If they did, you could soft proof and convert in Photoshop. But until LR provides a CMYK path (don’t hold your breath), you can’t use the CMYK specific profiles even if they were available (which thay aren’t).

Adobe RGB (1998) Missmatch

When I do the following:
1) Importing an image into Aperture (eater saved in Camera as Adobe RGB (1998) or in Photoshop CS3 with Adobe RGB (1998)
2) Within Aperture: Edit with Adobe Photoshop CS3
then Photoshop gives me this Mismatch Window:
Embedded: Adobe RGB (1998)
Working Space: Adobe RGB (1998)
OSX 10.5.4 has an Adobe RGB (1998) Profile so does Adobe CS3.
How can I solve this Mismatch. The same Profile is in two locations.
a) Library: Application Support: Adobe: Color: Profiles: Recommended: AdobeRGBN1998.icc
b) System: Library: ColorSync: Profiles: AdobeRGB.icc
bc

Odd thatn it would give you a mismatch when they're the same profile.
In Photoshop go to Edit >> Color Settings
Make sure RGB is set to Adobe RGB (1998) in the Working Spaces area.
Also make sure that RGB is set to Preserve Embedded Profiles in the Color Management Policies area. This setting should stop the error messages unless you have "Ask when Opening" checked.
Thay's all I can think of.
DLS

Adobe RGB Monitor Problem

I own a dell 2408wfp monitor that works with adobe rgb. photoshop seems to realize that and automatically adjusts the preview colors of srgb images so that it "matches" the srgb color settings. when exporting the image and previewing them in a browser the colors are - of course - way more intense, i guess that's because the browser dosn't render them for an adobe rgb monitor. the problem: the preview in photoshop on my adobe rgb monitor dosn't look nearly like the result on a normal srgb display. colors are just wrong. i get the best (=best matching) results when lowering the color intensity in the monitor settings and look at the result in my browser.
is there any way to disable the "monitor profile" in photoshop, so that it just displays the colors "wrong"/too intense?
thx for your help!

Thanks Dag and others. I apologize if I seemed frustrated, above, especially to Lundberg02 if he has taken any offense. None was meant!
Please permit me a bit of philosphizing for a moment...
You may take all this with a grain of salt, or as the ravings of a madman. It is in NO WAY intended to accuse or label anyone. Instead I simply request you keep an open mind...
I think the one thing that seems to apply stronger to the color-management realm than most others, for some reason, is that people who have found their footing initially believe that their way is the "best" (or sometimes "only") way to actually make color-management work, because it works for them, and because it was pretty difficult to reach this level initially. Out of the goodness of their hearts they want to try to bring others to their level of understanding. They simply have not realized yet that there are still higher levels of understanding.
I only offer this, to those who think this way, because I have been there: Your next level of understanding (and there always seem to be more levels) brings the realization that there is no "one" or "best" way to work - it depends on needs. It is at this stage that you finally realize that all those settings and features represent either the minimum set (or possibly even still a subset) of all the controls REALLY needed to get things right, and that quite possibly others will want to choose different ones - and even different workflows - than you have chosen. It is at this level where one begins to see why what seemed like poor terminology at first was actually chosen.
The next level beyond the above is a maturing of the understanding, over time, where one learns to sometimes change settings to meet changing needs, and one begins to actually exercise all the features and controls in daily operations to better meet his/her goals. It is at this level that one finds oneself revisiting ideas tossed out early on as "invalid" or "wrong", such as setting up a system to use a standard profile instead of a custom one. This is the level where one starts to understand how half-baked the whole system of color-management is, taking into account the OSs, browser and the web, and things beyond just the color-managed apps you use, because of its history.
The next evolutionary step - what has been referred-to above as the "Fraser" level - finds one developing one's own custom profiles, such as linear (gamma 1.0) working spaces or those with special gamuts, to suit particular needs not covered by what's already available. It is at this level that one can develop properly color-managed software, and innovate in the color-management realm (e.g., marry color-management into OpenGL, which has none).
Is there a next level? I haven't reached it, but I believe there must be one. I've not stopped learning.
At all levels, people at lower levels will tend to think any advice you may give is suspect, or outright wrong. Just try to be tolerant - one day they'll understand too.
My best advice:
Color-management is no more important than, say, Angry Birds. It's just stuff that happens on a computer. So don't take it too seriously and try not to get upset over it. And keep climbing the steps!
-Noel

Soft Proofing with Adobe RGB

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for