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.

Similar Messages

VISTA color management and monitor calibration

Elements 7.0
VISTA Home Premium SP1
Nvidia 8600
Samsung SyncMaster 213T
Canon XSi
Multiple printers
Since getting new system with Vista, I haven't been able to get a print that looks like my screen. I tried Costco today and everything was much darker than I expected, but the reds were much richer. I read a lot about calibrating my monitor, but it is possible that there is more do it than that? Learning to adjust skin tone etc. in Photoshop, only to have the prints look bad is pretty frustrating.
Is the other option to invest in a quality printer, or go to a real lab instead of Costco?
Please use small words, since I'm not a professional.
Regards,
Michael

Michael, color management is certainly a difficult issue to perfect. My monitor is color calibrated but it doesn't guarantee that the prints will match. With the same image, I get different results from different printers and labs. I get the best results from labs in the local camera/photo shops, and the pricing for enlargements is still on par with like Snapfish or Kodak.
Check this setting in PSE: Edit>Color Settings...>Always Optimize for Printing. I would suggest color calibrating your monitor, then try different labs until you find the best results.

Help please. Vista / CS3 Color Managment issue. Going nuts...

Hi all.
I'm in desperate need for some assistance since time is running out on a project that needs Powerpoint.
If I use color management in Bridge and look at my NEF and Jpegs they look somewhat desaturated and lacking vibrance as in comparison to another program, like AcdSee.
When i open up in Camera Raw, and then Photoshop, it looks the same. But hwen I copy to Powerpoint - it looks very vibrant and with a lot of saturation, luminance and hue. But it looks much better "eyecatching".
If I shut of color correction in Bridge, then the picture looks just as vibrant and nice as the end result in powerpoint and it looks just as good as in AcdSee! But the steps in between, that is Camera Raw and Adobe looks awful, and I'm supposed to make some color adjustments etc, making it absolutely impossible to know what the end resutl will be, since the color management is ON in Camera Raw and Photoshop.
I've callibrated my monitor, spyder3, I've set Adobe Bridge to use CS3 for monitor. I've tried alternating between Adobe RGB and sRGB. I've tried everything there is, but the colors in Camera Raw and Phtoshop are very wrong in relation to the end result. Can I shut down color management in Photoshop? Change it to Vista's? I know Adobe is right at the end of the day, it just doesn't work with the end result!
To add on to this, I've tried AcdSee and colors are correct in the RAW format. Thus, they don't have the same color correction and this looks exactly like the end result in the powerpoint.

>> the colors in Camera Raw and Phtoshop are very wrong in relation to the end result
Then you need to Photoshop> Convert to profile> Save As to the profile based on the end result because the end result sounds like an unmanaged application.
This is likely sRGB -- have you tried this?
What monitor, what did you profile it to (2.2 gamma/6500)?
http://www.gballard.net/psd/assignconvert.html

Settings in color management VISTA

http://s54.radikal.ru/i143/0808/c2/e56c95257436.jpg
I am using a new Dell3007WFP und NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT with Windows Vista. Images display with a yellow tinge when I open them in Photoshop CS3 (or Windows Photo Gallery).
They do not have the yellow tinge when viewed on a Windows XP box or other tools on Vista (Corel Snapfire, Windows file browser).
The problem is clearly illustrated at http://s54.radikal.ru/i143/0808/c2/e56c95257436.jpg
In the screenshot the same image is open in Photoshop, MS Paint, Windows Photo Gallery, and the Windows file browser.
New monitor profile I make with ColorVision Spyder2.
Interesting is when I proof colors in PS and to choose Monitor RGB colosr then is ok.
The problem is clearly illustrated at
http://www.imgup.ru/image-1219259414a58301a32cbd51cab30df38423af6fb1
Please help! This problem is driving me insane.
Juris

thank you, g ballard!
but i don`t want reed all links ....
but I think I have found one (meanwhile) solution!
in color management window as my defoult ICC profile I choose sRGB IEC61966-2.1.(I hope it is OK !?)
AND leave there my monitor profile
when I restart PC ColorVisionStartup give me notice --> can not load this monitor profile. Please select another profile.(1168)
then I manualy choose in --->ColorVision---> ProfileChooser my calibrated monitor profile... and UPSAAAaaa all is OK! (at least I think so!)
clearly illustrated at
http://s56.radikal.ru/i154/0808/92/123c1a16fb3d.jpg

Color Managment and CS3 Confusion - new LCD

Please help, I'm just learning about how Ps handles color and this is driving me nuts.
I'm using Ps CS3 in Vista 32-bit. Just got a new Dell 2408wfp LCD monitor. I'm using the default color profile it installed with monitor (specific to the monitor, not a "generic monitor" profile). Picture colors look great in Ps workspace. When go to "save for web" the images look way oversaturated (more orangish). In the save for web options, it's currently set to "uncompensated". If I change it to "Use document profile" or "standard windows color", it looks correct in "Save for web" preview. However, if I save it with either of these 2 settings and open it in IE, it looks bad again. In Ps, under "edit", my "color setting" is set to "North American General Purpose 2" with the workspace set to sRGV IEC61966-2.1. If I got to view -> proof setup -> and select "monitor RGB", the Ps workspace looks just like the "save for web" preview. My "Color Management" in the Vista Control Panel has the following settings:
Devices tab, ICC profile = Dell 240WFT color profile, D6500 default.
Advanced tab, device profile = system default (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
Advanced tab, viewing conditions profile = WCS profile for sRGB viewing conditions.
What is going on here? From the forums it seems like either Ps is wrong or my monitor is. Which version is truly in the image? What I see in Ps workspace or in the "save for web" preview? In this scenario what version would my website visitors see (bad or good image color)? Could Ps be "correct" and saving without a color profile when "save for web" and then IE is using my monitor profile and therefore looking bad? How can I fix?
Thanks in advance!

"What was confusing to me is ON MY MONITOR it looks good in Ps. "
What's confusing about this. Of course it looks good on your screen. Ps is using your monitor profile in conjunction with the workspace profile to display correctly. As soon as you view that sRGB image in Monitor RGB, which is what your other apps are doing, the on screen view goes to hell.
"If I then follow that logic, I should just ignore the SFW and final visualized output on my monitor in my workflow and hope my end users visiting my website don't have wide gamut monitors with goofy color profiles?"
Yes, that's about the best you can do. Actually embedding the profile and pushing for profile aware applications like Safari to become more widespread.
"Seems like this approach doesn't correct the problem for me or visitors to my website with a similar monitors. And if the issue is just my monitors color profile, why don't all images on the web also look color shifted on my monitor?"
How far off images look depends a lot on the image in question. Some types of images don't shift very much at all while others look hugely different. Also, if you're looking at images other than your own, you have no idea under what conditions (viewing and calibration) those images were adjusted. There are so many people, even professionals, who don't yet understand color spaces and calibration that you can't take anything for granted unless you do it yourself. For instance, I work with a lot of stock images from agencies like Getty and even though most of the files have embedded profiles, almost all of them were corrected by people who had no idea of how to properly do color and tonal correction, yet, somehow, you have to assume they thought the images looked great on their systems.

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?)

Photoshop CS3 color management "Save for Web" problem

This problem is getting the best of me.......
After spending 3 full days researching this problem, I am no closer to finding an answer than when I started. I still cannot produce a usable image through the "Save for Web" feature of Photoshop CS3. I have read web page after web page of "Tips, Tricks and Recommendations" from dozens of experts, some from this forum, and still I have no solution... I am exhausted and frustrated to say the least. Here's the simple facts that I know at this point.
I have a web design project that was started in PS CS1. All artwork was created in photoshop and exported to JPG format by using "Save for Web". Every image displays correctly in these browsers (Safari, Camino, FireFox and even Internet Explorer on a PC).
I have recently upgraded to PS CS3 and now cannot get any newly JPG'd image to display correctly. My original settings in CS1 were of no concern to me at the time, because it always just worked, and so I do not know what they were. I have opened a few of my previous images in CS3 and found that sRGB-2.1 displays them more or less accurately. I am using sRGB 2.1 working space. Upon openning these previous image files, I get the "Missing Profile" message and of course I select "Leave as is. Do Not color manage". CS3 assumes sRGB-2.1 working space, opens the file, and all is well.
The problem is when I go to "Save for Web", the saturation goes up, and the colors change. The opposite of what most people are reporting. Here's another important point... new artwork created in CS3 does exactly the same thing, so it's not because of the older CS1 files.
I have tried every combination of "uncompensated color", "Convert to sRGB", "ICC Profile", etc. while saving. I have Converted to sRGB before saving, and my monitor is calibrated correctly.
I have tried setting the "Save for Web" page on 2-up and the "original" on the left is already color shifted before I even hit the "Save" button. Of course, the "Optimized" image on the right looks perfect because I am cheating by selecting the "Use Document Color Profile" item. Why do they even have this feature if doesn't work, or misleads you?
Does anyone have any ideas what could be happening here? Why is this all so screwed up?
CS1 worked fine out of the box.
Final note: I do have an image file I could send along that demonstrates how it is possible to display an image exactly the same in all 4 of the browsers I mentioned with no color differences. It is untagged RGB and somehow it just works.
I am very frustrated with all of this and any suggestions will be appreciated
Thanks,
Pete

>> First of all... I'm using an Adobe RGB image master... I open it and get the Profile Mismatch Screen... I choose Use Enbedded profile... all looks well. Next I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... again all looks well, no change that I can tell.
This has further confused the issue on several points, not the least of which version PS you are doing this with?
>> AdobeRGB> Convert to Profile > Working Space sRGB-2.1... all still looks well... but now, when I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... I see the insane oversaturated look that is driving me nuts.
That is your strongest clue...it sounds like you have a bad system or bad monitor profile. To rule out the monitor profile: Set sRGB as your monitor profile in System Prefs> Displays> Color.
>> Adobe RGB image master... I open it and get the Profile Mismatch Screen... I choose Use Enbedded profile... all looks well. Next I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... again all looks well
That doesn't make sense, stripping an embedded AdobeRGB profile should desaturate the color in Softproof MonitorRGB, especially the reds -- you have something wacky going on there.
At this point I think you need to review the links and get a grip about how color management and profiles work...
BTW, forget about setting ColorSync in PS COlor Settings, use Adobe ACE.
MO,
I think SFW is fixed under CS3 :) By default it Converts to sRGB and strips the profile.

CS3 + ID CS4 - Color management Iussues in Bridge CS4

I have CS3 WEB PREMIUM edition and recently added InDesign CS4. While trying to get the color management right for all Suite applications I get an error in Bridge CS4.
"Suite Color Management is not enabled. Suite Color Management requires that a qualifying product has been launched at least once to enable this feature."
So, I DO have a Creative Suite, only different Versions of its applications. Where is the problem, and if Bridge CS4 keeps on thinking I have no Suite at all, am I supposed to reinstall Bridge CS3?

Pascal.
I see you are a new Mac user. In case you're not aware...
On the Mac, new installations of Adobe (and much other) software do not overwrite and/or replace older versions when doing full version upgrades. Older and current software versions coexist and you can still use either -- particularly useful when learning a new version, but you still need to get work done now. Or if there is a favorite feature that was not included in the new version (such as no ImageReady included with Photoshop).
Be aware, though, double-clicking on a file will launch the latest version unless the older version was previously launched.
For those apps or (more likely) utilities that do overwrite or remove older versions, you're given a heads-up before you commit to an install.
Neil

Color management problems printing to Epson R2880 from CS3

I recently purchased an Epson R2880 printer. I am having a lot of trouble getting good color when printing from Photoshop CS3. I am running OS 10.4 on a G4 Mac. I have a high-quality monitor and an EyeOne calibrator. I have spent a total of a few hours on the phone with tech support from the store where I bought the monitor and calibrator, and with Epson. To try and keep it simple, I am using all Epson products (ink, paper, their ICC profiles downloaded from their site). I have calibrated my monitor to brightness: 80, white point: 5000 K, Gamma 2.2.
All that tech support has brought me to the point where prints I get on Epson Velvet Fine Art paper and almost where they match what I see on the monitor, though they still could use a touch more red. I've tried making a slight curves adjustment to the red channel but I still don't quite have it. But it's basically acceptable.
So then I tried Epson Premium Presentation Matte paper. After a lengthy session with the Epson tech, we determined that I can get a print that's almost right by printing out of Preview and letting the printer manage colors. If I make a levels adjustment and brighten it a good bit, I get a very good print. But if I try printing on that paper from CS3 I get something that looks like a washed out black-and-white print with a hint of color in it. The Epson tech (a level 2 tech) told me to use the SPR 2880 Matte Paper-HW profile. Didn't help. At that point he said that he'd done all he could do and that for further assistance I needed to contact Adobe about "advanced settings in Photoshop." Of course, I'd prefer to print out of Photoshop because it gives more options in terms of placement and size of the print on the paper.
So here are my questions:
- Is this kind of thing par for the course, and will I eventually figure out a system that gives me good results all the time with any Epson paper I choose with a minimum of tinkering with levels and curves?
- Or should I expect more from a printer that costs almost $1,000 and should I return it for, say, a Canon?
- Is there information online about those "advanced settings" the Epson tech was referring to?
- Or would I be advised to purchase a one-on-one phone consultation from Adobe Photoshop tech support to resolve these problems?
Thanks,
Helen

Mike,
Gee Ramón, I am guessing Mike did a search for Epson R2880/CS3 and noticed that a Mac user was having the same problem he was. If together, maybe Windows users and Mac users can come together and solve the problems of the Epson R2880, maybe we can set a good example for the Republicans and Democrats in Congress :-).
Anyway, since I posted this problem, I have been working on it getting input from a variety of people. The person who finally helped me was Jim, a tech at ColorHQ.com. If you are in the US or Canada and have to buy a monitor and/or calibrator, definitely consider buying it from them, because they offer free tech support to their customers!
So regarding yellowness, one thing that you definitely should look at is how you're calibrating your monitor. Despite some of the replies above that recommend calibrating to 6500K, ColorHQ, which specializes in solutions for the printing industry, told me that calibrating to 5000K is the print industry standard. (While 6500K is the standard for working on images for the web or for editing video.) 5000K will make the monitor look yellower, so see whether that's a better match to what you're printing. I have an Eizo monitor and am running their Color Navigator software. The nice thing about that is something called Color Navigator Agent that allows me to switch between calibration profiles on the fly if I'm doing some web work and then want to work on images for printing.
Calibrating to 5000K was helpful, but not the solution in my case. The ultimate solution to my problem was more of a Mac issue, so I don't know if this will help you, but I'll post it in case anyone refers to this discussion in the future: there evidently IS an issue with ColorSync Utility in the Mac interfering with Photoshop managing colors in OS 10.4. In my case, ColorSync was causing the printer to preserve RGB values rather than use the ICC profile. The afore-mentioned Jim suggested that I go to Edit: Convert to Paper Profile, then pick the profile from the list. When printing, in the first Photoshop dialog box choose Color Handling: No color management. All the other settings in the next dialog box are the same as when you don't want the Epson to manage colors. So what you're doing is making it so the profile is built into the file, and neither Photoshop nor Epson are managing colors.
The result to this was MUCH better. The soft proof is a little redder than the print, but I can adjust that by creating a curves adjustment layer and pulling down the red curve in the middle a little bit if I want to see what the print will look like. I can live with that.
Also Jim pointed out that those papers that you mentioned are in fact a little warm in tone -- put Velvet Fine Art next to a piece of ordinary copy paper from say, Staples, and you'll see the difference. He suggested that if it's the matte look I want (it is) that Hahnemuhle makes a couple of papers that are brighter: Photo Rag Baryta and Bright White He also likes Ilford Gold Fiber silk, but that's a luster satin finish. You can download the Hahnemuhle profiles from Hahnemuhle's web site and compare them in "Soft Proof" mode in Photoshop with the Epson papers you mentioned and get an idea of the difference with your images. I haven't actually printed on them yet, but I see what he means.
Good luck, and I'd be interested to know how it goes for you.
--Helen

Color management issues with Flash CS3, please help?

Hello everyone.
I am having issues with color from a Jpeg image produced in Photoshop CS4
after importing onto the stage in Flash CS3. The color in Flash changes the image to a lighter less saturated state. Yuk.
Here is a link to a screen capture to show you what's happening (for a bigger view):
http://www.rudytorres.com/color/weirdcolor.png
As you can see the front image is the Photoshop image showing the sRGB color profile embedded but Flash (behind) changes that color.
This client is quite picky and she will notice this difference.
If any one can help, please.
- Rudy
P.S. It's a button somewhere, Right?

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

Color management, printing with InDesign CS3

RGB output devices (this includes essentially all inkjet printers from every manufacturer, when driven by the manufacturer print driver). Inkjet printers driven by a PostScript RIP are considered CMYK output devices, and thus this post does not apply to them.
When printing to RGB output devices from InDesign using the same ICC profiles and settings as in Photoshop, you still get crummy results, in terms of color, that differ from both IDCS2 and other Adobe applications including Photoshop CS3.
InDesign CS2 previously did all rasterizing and color space conversion in InDesign prior to submitting the print job to the OS. In CS3 this was changed to submit PostScript + colorspace information, which is then supposed to be normalized by the OS. Except that it doesn't work. Mac OS X drops the color space information.
The work around is to check "Print as Bitmap" in the advanced section of the IDCS3 print dialog. This causes IDCS3 to do the conversion and generate a bitmap prior to submitting to the OS, rather than depending on the OS to do color conversion or rasterizing, which is the default behavior with IDCS2. Thus you can use the same ICC profiles and print driver settings as with all other Adobe applications, if you choose this option.
Chris Murphy
co-author Real World Color Management 2e

Chris,
First, I am surprised that there has been no response to your post since there were more than a few complaints about the problem in this forum when IDCS3 first came out. So thank you for the solution to this vexing problem.
But I find some of the language in your post a bit problematic:
>InDesign CS2 previously did all rasterizing and color space conversion in InDesign prior to submitting the print job to the OS.
and
>... rather than depending on the OS to do color conversion or rasterizing, which is the default behavior with IDCS2.
The second quote seems incorrect on two counts:
1. It contradicts the first quoted statement.
2. In my mac IDCS2 (version 4.0.5 build 688) in the options area of the color management pane of the print dialog, the only available choice for the Color Handling pop up is "Let InDesign Determine Colors".
So the default behavior with IDCS2 seems to be "Let InDesign Determine Colors".
I am not at all taking issue with the main point of your post, which I welcome wholeheartedly. I just find the second quoted phrase from you post confusing. Can you please clarify.
Returning to your main point, are there any downsides of using the Print as Bitmap method?
Thanks,
Al

Color Management, Photoshop CS3 and Epson Inkjet Printer

I have been down this road before but here goes again...
Im using Photoshop CS3.
Im printing on an Epson Stylus Photo RX680 using Photo quality inkjet paper.
I know this printer is capable of very good quality prints.
Thing is I can not figure out the correct combination of color management settings to get a decent print out of Photoshop or InDesign.
I have read that you are supposed to turn off all printer color management and let Adobe manage the color. Doesnt seem to work.
I just get overly magenta images that look awful.
If I let the Epson color management control color I can get a lot closer but the print out is far from accurate or high quality.
So what the heck IS the correct protocol for printing to an Epson inkjet printer from an Adobe app.
BTW, I do seem to get a fairly decent print out of something like a PDF which I understand does its own postscript conversion before hitting the printer.
Is this what my issue is?
Does Photoshop or InDesign require postscript ripper software to get decent results out of an inkjet printer?

Have spent hours with both Adobe and Epson support people. I've read several of these forums. Is there an insurmountable problem with CS3 and Epson (2200/2400 are mine)? I have the Leopard patches and upgrade 10.5.4.
With Photoshop managing the color I get prints that are slightly underexposed and carry a pink cast. Color management is off. With the printer managing the color I get prints that are too green and dark. Epson advice here is to have color management off. There are two other choices for management but to adjust a perfectly balanced print to the printer's whim seem like cruel punishment.
Have a calibrated monitor and my CS2 works beautifully. Perhaps the best idea is to just go back to CS2 until Adobe and Epson can decide what to do. According to Adobe people, the CS3 gives much of the management back to Epson. According to Epson -- with CS3, you should choose the printer to manage the color (since this seems to be the trend between the two companies) but we users are not happy with the results.
What is the solution for right now?

CS3 color management won't match prints

Okay, I know there are a lot of boneheds who can't figure out how to set up color in Bridge and CS3 but I am at my wits end on this so bear me out.
Windows XP and CS3
Bridge is set to; Enable color management in Bridge
RAW conversion is SRGB
CS3 color settings/working space set to SRGB
Print color management is set to SRGB and Photoshop manages colors
Printer is set to "application manages colors" (HP B9180)(btw, I have also tried it set to SRGB)
Image looks the same on Bridge, RAW conversion, CS3 and print screen (dark)Image looks LIGHTER when viewed with any other program (including windows picture and fax viewer, HP print program, Paint Shop Pro and online) and prints to match the lighter image both on my HP and from my lab!
The closest I have been able to get to a total sync is to set Photoshop's color settings to "Monitor color," and uncheck the box in Bridge that says "apply color management settings in Bridge." In that case, Bridge and CS3 produce a lighter image but RAW conversion is still darker. Plus, who the hell wants to use monitor color in Photoshop!?

That's pretty much it David... I could get Photoshop to match my prints but then any other program would show the prints as being waaaay off-color.
Today I bought a spider2express and color balanced my monitor. Now everything seems to look in sync and my prints match very close (a little warm for my tastes..). Tech support at Photoshop told me it was a calibration issue but I thought that was bull... i mean, how can calibration make an image that looks different in two different programs look the same? Well, it does. As far as I understand it now (layman's terms)when you look at an image in windows viewer ot explorer or any other non-color management program you are looking at the image based on your monitor profile. When you look at the same image in photoshop the program uses it's own color management which then gets filtered through your monitor program to your eyes (but not to the printer). If your monitor profile is bad, the image looks bad.
Or something like that :)

Color Managed Printing from LR 1.3.1 Inverse of Proper PS CS3 10.0.1 Behavior

Please excuse the length and detail of this post - I'm just trying to be very clear...
Also, it would be helpful if anyone having definitive information about this topic could please email me directly in addition to replying to this forum topic, in order that I might know a response is available sooner (I am new to this forum, and may not check it regularly). My direct email address is [email protected].
Bottom Line: Color managed printing using my own custom-generated profiles from LR 1.3.1 to my Epson 7600 (on Intel-based Mac OS X 10.5.2, but saw the same behavior with 10.5.1) using the current Epson 7600 Intel/10.5x-compatible driver (3.09) is broken, and appears to be doing the exact opposite (inverse) of what I would expect and what PS CS3 does properly.
I am color management experienced, and have been using my custom-generated EPSON 7600 profiles with reliable soft proofing and printing success in PS (both CS2 and now CS3) for some time now. I know how the EPSON printer driver should be set relative to PS/LR print settings to indicate desired function. Images exported from LR to PS and printed from PS using "Photoshop Manages Color" and proper printer driver settings ("No Color Adjustment") print perfectly, so it isn't the Intel-based Mac, the OS, the driver, the profile, or me -- it is LR behaving badly.
The specific behavior is that printing from LR using "Managed by Printer" with the EPSON driver's Color Management setting set properly to "Colorsync" prints a reasonable-looking print, about what you would expect for canned profiles from the manufacturer, and in fact identical to the results obtained printing the same image from PS using "Printer Manages Color". So far so good. Switching to my specific custom profiles in LR and printing with the driver's CM setting set properly to "No Color Adjustment" yields results that are clearly whacked, for both LR settings of "Perceptual" and "Relative CM". Just for completeness and out of curiosity, I tried printing from LR using the same profile (once for "Perceptual" and once more for "Relative CM") with the EPSON driver's CM setting set IMPROPERLY to "Colorsync", and the results were much more in line with what you would expect - I would almost say it was "correct" output. This is why I used the phrase "inverse of proper behavior" in the subject line of this topic. Going one step further, trying this same set of improper settings in PS (PS print settings set to "Photoshop Manages Color" with either Perceptual or Rel CM selected, but using "Colorsync" rather than "No Color Adjustment" in the Color Management pane of the EPSON printer driver) yields whacked results as you would expect that look identical to the whacked results obtained from LR using "proper" settings.
I said above that the improper settings from LR yielded results that I would almost say were correct. "Almost" because the benchmark results rendered by PS using proper settings are slightly different - both "better" and closer to each other - than those rendered by LR using the improper settings. The diffs between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from LR using improper settings showed more marked differences in tone/contrast/saturation than the diffs observed between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from PS using proper settings - the image itself was in-gamut enough that diffs between Perceptual and Rel CM in the proper PS prints were quite subtle. Even though the improper LR prints were slightly inferior to the proper PS prints, the improper LR prints were still within tolerances of what you might expect, and still better (in terms of color matching) than the "Managed by Printer" print from LR. At first guess, I would attribute this (the improper LR prints being inferior to the proper PS prints) to the CMM being used by LR being different from (inferior to) the CMM I have selected for use in PS (that being "Adobe (ACE)"). I can live with the LR CMM being slightly different from that use

(Here's the 2nd half of my post...)
I said above that the improper settings from LR yielded results that I would almost say were correct. "Almost" because the benchmark results rendered by PS using proper settings are slightly different - both "better" and closer to each other - than those rendered by LR using the improper settings. The diffs between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from LR using improper settings showed more marked differences in tone/contrast/saturation than the diffs observed between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from PS using proper settings - the image itself was in-gamut enough that diffs between Perceptual and Rel CM in the proper PS prints were quite subtle. Even though the improper LR prints were slightly inferior to the proper PS prints, the improper LR prints were still within tolerances of what you might expect, and still better (in terms of color matching) than the "Managed by Printer" print from LR. At first guess, I would attribute this (the improper LR prints being inferior to the proper PS prints) to the CMM being used by LR being different from (inferior to) the CMM I have selected for use in PS (that being "Adobe (ACE)"). I can live with the LR CMM being slightly different from that used in PS - that is not the issue here. What is at issue is trying to determine why LR is clearly behaving differently than PS in this well-understood area of functionality, all other variables being the same. (And, incidentally, why am I not seeing other posts raising these same questions?)
My "workaround" is to use "Managed by Printer" for printing rough prints from LR and to do all other printing from PS, especially given the noted diffs in CMM performance between LR and PS and the fact that printing from PS also supports using Photokit Sharpener for high-quality prints. Still it would be nice to understand why this is happening in LR and to be able to print "decent" prints directly from LR when it seemed appropriate.
Any insights or suggestions will be very much appreciated. Please remember to reply to my direct email address ([email protected]) in addition to your public reply to this forum.
Thank you!
/eddie

HELP with sRGB in Photoshop Color Management Winows Vista

Greetings beautiful Windows people!
I am stumped with a Windows Vista problem — it is not displaying sRGB properly.
I posted bigger files here if this is easier to follow
http://www.gballard.net/windows_srgb/
But here goes:
First, my main question is HOW Windows Vista deals with sRGB because I am seeing inconsistant sRGB color on a client's workflow.
The first clue is:
How Photoshop is displaying Tagged sRGB on the two machines:
The original sRGB tagged file opens as above on my Mac.
Note: In the lower screen shots, Firefox has color-management enabled — and Photoshop's Working RGB is set to sRGB (it is using the sRGB embedded profile).
In the above Windows screenshot — Photoshop and Firefox look yellow — Explorer displays TAGGED sRGB correct — FireFox incorrectly matches Photoshop.
In the above Windows screenshot — Photoshop looks yellow — Explorer 8 and Firefox display UNTAGGED sRGB correct.
BECAUSE THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE THEORY, I suspected a bad profile so we loaded sRGB as the Monitor profile in the Windows Color Management setting.
Setting Windows Vista> Control Panel> Color Management: to sRGB fixed the problem (above, Photoshop is displaying the file correctly now, and sRGB is behaving as expected in both managed and unmanaged Web browsers).
However, I am clueless about two things:
Is Vista's "Color Management" Control Panel setting its Monitor RGB, or
Is Vista's "Color Management" Control Panel setting a DEFAULT RGB for the system?
I suspect the client has a bad hardware puck and/or buggy profiling package that needs an update because it appears to be even causing Photoshop to display sRGB improperly using the custom profile (and this is happening on eight of the client's Windows boxes).
He is using a glossy screen on the laptop I saw if his package can't handle it).
Can someone please clue me here as to what's going on (and how Vista should be set up to display sRGB consistantly in Photoshop and WEB BROWSERS)?

Thank you Chris,
When I did windows update I must have checked to download new display drivers I'm using (Dell with Dell Screens). It was loaded into the color settings as a profile, I hit delete and now all is well.
-Patrick

Vista color management & CS3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for