snubbr.com

confused about Photoshop Adobe RGB (1998)
I don't know if this is the right place for this question but here goes:.

I used to work in Photoshop with the color settings set to sRGB IEC 61966-2.1 as default. Now I've just read one of Scott Kelby's book and he strongly advises to use Adobe RGB (1998) as do many sites on the internet about color settings..

I've tried it and what I don't understand is that my photos now appear different in Photoshop with this setting compared to if I view my photos out of Photoshop (with an image viewer). The colors for one, are much richer. If I process some of my work and save it with the Adobe RGB (1998) settings and then view them again with an image viewer, they don't look the same as in Photoshop. With the image viewer, they look like the previous sRGB setting with flatter but more neutral colors. What's happening ? Should I just forget about Adobe RGB ? .

Is it possible to always see my images in Adobe RGB (1998) no matter what program I use to view my pictures ? .

Thank you..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comments (63)

Michel F wrote:.

I've tried it and what I don't understand is that my photos nowappear different in Photoshop with this setting compared to if I viewmy photos out of Photoshop (with an image viewer)..

Photoshop is color-space aware and will remap the colors so they will look correct for the monitor or the printer. Most other viewers are not color space aware, so they will assume sRGB which as you notice looks wrong because the scales are different..

Should I just forget about Adobe RGB ? .

Do you print or are your images mainly for web/monitor viewing? The reason to work in AdobeRGB and 16-bit color is like the reason for shooting raw - it give you more latitude for adjustments with out overflowing or posterizing. However, this is more important for printing because printers have a different/wider color space than monitors. If you shoot mainly for electronic viewing and do not make significant color adjustments, it's probably not worth it. Besides, unless everyone who views your images has a color-calibrated monitor, they will loose more fidelity there than any color space issues..

Is it possible to always see my images in Adobe RGB (1998) no matterwhat program I use to view my pictures ? .

No, the application has to understand and use the color space tag information in the files. If you use AdobeRGB to edit, then you should do a "save for web" export to sRGB to create the final product that others will view..

Erik..

Comment #1

Srgb is a gamut (colour space) created to describe all the colours a monitor can show. Imagine it as a pool full of colours, there are many colour spaces like different sizes of pools. Adobe RGB is a very large colour space so shooting and keeping your work in Adobe RGB gives your image much more colour range(deeper broader pool). However if your camera only shoots in srgb and you only ever show or view your images on monitors srgb may be ok for you (some 4x6 machine printers use srgb files too)If you are working on and saving images in photoshop for various uses, best to convert to Adobe RGB, the colour in the image does change, photoshop has a formula for the conversion..

Hard to quickly and simply describe this hope I haven't confused you...

Comment #2

I shoot RGB from the camera to the other end. the colors are fine. you should know that sRGB is a subset of RGB. that is, if you shoot RGB you can get sRGB at time you wish in photoshop, but if you shoot sRGB you really cannot get a true RGB later, the colors are just not there, and they were not there to begin with because the camera did not shoot them. there is also a slight increase in the camera's headroom if it is set to RGB; the storage tank, as it were, is bigger..

I send my 16x 20 and 20x30 to kodakgallery.com and my panoramas to jumbogiant.com they both use photographic techs to work on prints and image files. so for them it doesn't matter if they get a RGB they adjust it themselves. I print my own if 8x10 and smaller but the printer is set to RGB. that is what I meant earlier when I said I use RGB beginning to end..

If I need a sRGB image file I simply make one from the RGB file in either pe6 or cs2. for the web, for example..

Note that as others stated photoshop and pe5-6 are giving you the correct color in RGB. but that says nothing about how well other programs are doing it. I simply suggest that any color correction work you do, do it in photoshop or pe so you know exactly what you are getting..

Also, is your monitor calibrated? if yes, fine. if no, then do so. working with an uncalibrated motor means that you will not know what colors you are actually getting as the final output. simply-is the final red really that color red? with an uncalibrated monitor you do not know what the red really is...

Comment #3

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

Michel F wrote:.

I've tried it and what I don't understand is that my photos nowappear different in Photoshop with this setting compared to if I viewmy photos out of Photoshop (with an image viewer)..

Photoshop is color-space aware and will remap the colors so they willlook correct for the monitor or the printer. Most other viewers arenot color space aware, so they will assume sRGB which as younotice looks wrong because the scales are different..

Hi Erik. Your statement is one of the most commonly repeated myths about colour management. Non-colour aware apps have no concept of colour space. They just send the image RGB values to the display system. If the response of the display system is close enough to sRGB, then an sRGB image will look ok when being viewed in a non-colour aware app..

Should I just forget about Adobe RGB ? .

Do you print or are your images mainly for web/monitor viewing? Thereason to work in AdobeRGB and 16-bit color is like the reason forshooting raw - it give you more latitude for adjustments with outoverflowing or posterizing. However, this is more important forprinting because printers have a different/wider color space thanmonitors. If you shoot mainly for electronic viewing and do notmake significant color adjustments, it's probably not worth it.Besides, unless everyone who views your images has a color-calibratedmonitor, they will loose more fidelity there than any color spaceissues..

Is it possible to always see my images in Adobe RGB (1998) no matterwhat program I use to view my pictures ? .

No, the application has to understand and use the color space taginformation in the files. If you use AdobeRGB to edit, then youshould do a "save for web" export to sRGB to create the final productthat others will view..

Or convert to sRGB and use 'Save As', which preserves EXIF data..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #4

Kinnaird wrote:.

Srgb is a gamut (colour space) created to describe all the colours amonitor can show. Imagine it as a pool full of colours, there aremany colour spaces like different sizes of pools. Adobe RGB is a verylarge colour space so shooting and keeping your work in Adobe RGBgives your image much more colour range(deeper broader pool). Howeverif your camera only shoots in srgb and you only ever show or viewyour images on monitors srgb may be ok for you (some 4x6 machineprinters use srgb files too) ..

Fair enough up to this point..

If you are working on and savingimages in photoshop for various uses, best to convert to Adobe RGB,the colour in the image does change, photoshop has a formula for theconversion..

Now things are a bit confused. You haven't really explained about different uses. Your statement implies that you can save your image as an aRGB image in Photoshop for uses that may include viewing in non-colour aware apps like many web browsers..

ARGB is fine when using colour aware applications for viewing and editing, and aRGB is ok for printing if the print service can handle aRGB..

However, for posting for non colour aware app viewing, including for thehttp://www, it's best to make sure the image is an sRGB image before posting. To do that, you either convert to sRGB in a colour aware app like Photoshop or you use Save for Web in Photoshop..

Hard to quickly and simply describe this hope I haven't confused you..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #5

GaryDeM wrote:.

I shoot RGB from the camera to the other end. the colors are fine.you should know that sRGB is a subset of RGB..

Hi Gary. You obviously meant to say Adobe RGB 1998 (aRGB) everywhere that you just said RGB through your response. Obviously aRGB is a colour space, whereas RGB is a colour mode, just like Lab, grayscale and CMYK..

That is, if you shootRGB you can get sRGB at time you wish in photoshop, but if you shootsRGB you really cannot get a true RGB later, the colors are just notthere, and they were not there to begin with because the camera didnot shoot them. there is also a slight increase in the camera'sheadroom if it is set to RGB; the storage tank, as it were, is bigger.i send my 16x 20 and 20x30 to kodakgallery.com and my panoramas tojumbogiant.com they both use photographic techs to work on prints andimage files. so for them it doesn't matter if they get a RGB theyadjust it themselves. I print my own if 8x10 and smaller but theprinter is set to RGB. that is what I meant earlier when I said I useRGB beginning to end..

If I need a sRGB image file I simply make one from the RGB file ineither pe6 or cs2. for the web, for example..

Note that as others stated photoshop and pe5-6 are giving you thecorrect color in RGB. but that says nothing about how well otherprograms are doing it. I simply suggest that any color correctionwork you do, do it in photoshop or pe so you know exactly what youare getting.also, is your monitor calibrated? if yes, fine. if no, then do so.working with an uncalibrated motor means that you will not know whatcolors you are actually getting as the final output. simply-is thefinal red really that color red? with an uncalibrated monitor you donot know what the red really is..

Mostly true. Most monitors don't have a gamut anywhere near aRGB, so what you're seeing, even when properly colour managed, is just a representation of the actual colour, obviously modified somehow to be able to be displayed. However, I fully agree with the intent of what you are saying in that it is way better to properly calibrate and profile your display system to standardise your environment as best you can..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #6

Michel F wrote:.

I don't know if this is the right place for this question but here goes:.

I used to work in Photoshop with the color settings set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as default. Now I've just read one of Scott Kelby's bookand he strongly advises to use Adobe RGB (1998) as do many sites onthe internet about color settings..

I've tried it and what I don't understand is that my photos nowappear different in Photoshop with this setting compared to if I viewmy photos out of Photoshop (with an image viewer). The colors forone, are much richer. If I process some of my work and save it withthe Adobe RGB (1998) settings and then view them again with an imageviewer, they don't look the same as in Photoshop. With the imageviewer, they look like the previous sRGB setting with flatter butmore neutral colors. What's happening ? Should I just forget aboutAdobe RGB ? .

Is it possible to always see my images in Adobe RGB (1998) no matterwhat program I use to view my pictures ? .

Thank you..

Hi Michel. Nobody has explained to you what is happening, so here goes..

RGB images consist of triplets of three numbers for each pixel (an R, a G and a B value for each pixel). Each triplet represents a particular real world colour in each colour space, ie the colours are different from each other in different colour spaces. The same numbers are used, but they represent different colours..

Adobe RGB 1998 (aRGB) is a wider colour space than sRGB. That means that the RGB triplets represent wider (more intense) colours in the aRGB space than they do in the sRGB space..

If you have an aRGB image that you work on in Photoshop, it should look ok on your monitor. Your monitor most likely has a response that's probably closer to sRGB than to aRGB. Photoshop adjusts the colours so that they look ok even though you're not really seeing aRGB colours..

If you look at that same image using a non colour aware app, like many image viewers and web browsers, there is no adjustment to display properly. The image RGB values are just sent straight to your display system and the result is whatever the system's native response is, even if you have calibrated and profiled. There is no colour adjustment/conversion..

Numbers that represent colours in the aRGB colour space are smaller than the numbers that represent the same colours in the sRGB colour space. When you use a non-colour aware app to view an aRGB image, it sends those RGB values to your display system. Your system has a response that's closer to sRGB, so the colours end up being more like the colours that those numbers would represent in the sRGB colour space, ie the colours will be more muted. Remember, this is only a rough approximation. There is no understanding of any colour space by the application in this process..

If instead you viewed an sRGB image in a non-colour aware app, the app would still just send the RGB values straight to the display system without conversion, but the colours would look closer to what you would expect for an sRGB image because the display system is in the ballpark of an sRGB response..

If you want to use aRGB for processing for printing, no problem. Just make sure you convert he image to sRGb before saving for viewing in a non-colour aware app like many image viewers and web browsers. Choosing Save for Web in Photoshop converts to sRGb by default. I prefer to convert to sRGB separately and then use Save As in Photoshop to preserve EXIF data..

When you convert an image from aRGB to sRGB in Photoshop, the program uses a rendering intent to decide how to make the aRGB colours fit into the sRGB colour space. If none of the colours in your aRGB image are outside the sRGB gamut, then the colours are just remapped to use new RGB numbers that work in the new colour space. If some of the aRGB image colours are outside the available gamut of the sRGB space, some adjustment of real world colour has to occur to create colours that fit in the sRGB space. Once that colour is decided, the appropriate RGB value is set for the new space to represent that new colour. Conversion from one colour space to another involves changing the RGB values of the image so that they look right in the new colour space. Conversion alters RGB values..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #7

John down under wrote:.

Hi Erik. Your statement is one of the most commonly repeated mythsabout colour management..

It's just an oversimplification. Since sRGB was defined around standard monitor phosphors, it's likely the closest approximation to an unprofiled monitor. (And we're also ignoring 1.8 vs. 2.2 gamma.).

Or convert to sRGB and use 'Save As', which preserves EXIF data..

To convert use "Edit->Convert to Profile" and then sRGB IEC61966-2.1 in the "Destination Space"..

Erik..

Comment #8

Hi Michel. Nobody has explained to you what is happening, so here goes..

RGB images consist of triplets of three numbers for each pixel (an R,a G and a B value for each pixel). Each triplet represents aparticular real world colour in each colour space, ie the colours aredifferent from each other in different colour spaces. The samenumbers are used, but they represent different colours..

Adobe RGB 1998 (aRGB) is a wider colour space than sRGB. That meansthat the RGB triplets represent wider (more intense) colours in theaRGB space than they do in the sRGB space..

If you have an aRGB image that you work on in Photoshop, it shouldlook ok on your monitor. Your monitor most likely has a responsethat's probably closer to sRGB than to aRGB. Photoshop adjusts thecolours so that they look ok even though you're not really seeingaRGB colours..

If you look at that same image using a non colour aware app, likemany image viewers and web browsers, there is no adjustment todisplay properly. The image RGB values are just sent straight toyour display system and the result is whatever the system's nativeresponse is, even if you have calibrated and profiled. There is nocolour adjustment/conversion..

Numbers that represent colours in the aRGB colour space are smallerthan the numbers that represent the same colours in the sRGB colourspace. When you use a non-colour aware app to view an aRGB image, itsends those RGB values to your display system. Your system has aresponse that's closer to sRGB, so the colours end up being more likethe colours that those numbers would represent in the sRGB colourspace, ie the colours will be more muted. Remember, this is only arough approximation. There is no understanding of any colour spaceby the application in this process..

If instead you viewed an sRGB image in a non-colour aware app, theapp would still just send the RGB values straight to the displaysystem without conversion, but the colours would look closer to whatyou would expect for an sRGB image because the display system is inthe ballpark of an sRGB response..

If you want to use aRGB for processing for printing, no problem.Just make sure you convert he image to sRGb before saving for viewingin a non-colour aware app like many image viewers and web browsers.Choosing Save for Web in Photoshop converts to sRGb by default. Iprefer to convert to sRGB separately and then use Save As inPhotoshop to preserve EXIF data..

When you convert an image from aRGB to sRGB in Photoshop, theprogram uses a rendering intent to decide how to make the aRGBcolours fit into the sRGB colour space. If none of the colours inyour aRGB image are outside the sRGB gamut, then the colours are justremapped to use new RGB numbers that work in the new colour space.If some of the aRGB image colours are outside the available gamut ofthe sRGB space, some adjustment of real world colour has to occur tocreate colours that fit in the sRGB space. Once that colour isdecided, the appropriate RGB value is set for the new space torepresent that new colour. Conversion from one colour space toanother involves changing the RGB values of the image so that theylook right in the new colour space. Conversion alters RGB values..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10.

For someone who had no idea of what color space means (me), that was illuminating. Thank you!.

I presume the image itself stores some sort of information about the color space? Or else I can imagine a lot of problems. What you're saying is that many image programs just are not sophisticated enough to actually make use of that data, and send the RGB triplets to the monitor as-is?..

Comment #9

Thanks Erik..

My monitor is a Samsung CRT. Could I use Adobe RGB 1998 on my monitor as well ? .

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #10

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

John down under wrote:.

Hi Erik. Your statement is one of the most commonly repeated mythsabout colour management..

It's just an oversimplification. Since sRGB was defined aroundstandard monitor phosphors, it's likely the closest approximation toan unprofiled monitor. (And we're also ignoring 1.8 vs. 2.2 gamma.).

Or convert to sRGB and use 'Save As', which preserves EXIF data..

To convert use "Edit->Convert to Profile" and then sRGB IEC61966-2.1in the "Destination Space"..

How can I know if the file (after editing) was converted properly to sRGB ? Does color profiling info show in Exif data ? .

Erik.

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #11

Kinnaird wrote:.

Srgb is a gamut (colour space) created to describe all the colours amonitor can show. Imagine it as a pool full of colours, there aremany colour spaces like different sizes of pools. Adobe RGB is a verylarge colour space so shooting and keeping your work in Adobe RGBgives your image much more colour range(deeper broader pool). Howeverif your camera only shoots in srgb and you only ever show or viewyour images on monitors srgb may be ok for you (some 4x6 machineprinters use srgb files too)If you are working on and savingimages in photoshop for various uses, best to convert to Adobe RGB,the colour in the image does change, photoshop has a formula for theconversion..

Hard to quickly and simply describe this hope I haven't confused you..

I think I understand the concept. maybe my questions were confusing. I have a D40 and I shoot in sRGB IIIa. When I open an original (untouched) photo in Photoshop, the colors are different because it uses RGB (1998). I understand this. What I want to know is when I edit my photos and then save them in whatever format (jpg or tif), does it save these pictures with with the embeded Adobe RGB (1998) profile ? If so, is there a way to view my (edited) pictures in the same way I would see them in Photoshop ? Basically, I'm confused by the fact that I see them differently in Photoshop than in my image viewer which is ACDsee by the way.



There is an Adobe mode in the Nikon D40. Is it the same as the one in Photoshop ? Honestly I've been going to the Nikon forum since I got my camera and everybody shoots in mode sRGB Ia or IIIa.Thanks..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #12

Michel F wrote:.

My monitor is a Samsung CRT. Could I use Adobe RGB 1998 on my monitoras well ? .

Not really. A few rather expensive monitors are capable of a wider color space that's close to AdobeRGB. Again this is an oversimplification, but every device has a colorspace. For example you can print hues that you cannot display and you can display hues you cannot print. sRGB was designed around a "typical" CRT as a minimum colorspace that is likely to look right on most monitors. What you would want to do is create a profile for your monitor that would define what colors it's fully capable of.

Gretag-MacBeth Eye-One Display 2 or Color Vision Spyder 2 PRO). If you don't want to do this, you could look to see if Samsung has a profile for your monitor on their website. This may be better than nothing, but it still will make assumptions on how you setup your monitor w.r.t. brightness, contrast, and color temperature. (Also CRT monitors change both as they warm up while on and as they age over the years.).

Erik..

Comment #13

Thanks for the help. I think I got some of it..

So let's say I edit my photos in Photoshop for viewing in an image viewer and on the web. As I understand it, on the web, people will not see my pictures as I see them in Photoshop when I use Adobe RGB right ? They would see them more as RGB or sRGB (as I see them in my image viewer or close to it depending on monitor calibration, graphics card, etc.). What advantage would I then have of editing my pictures in the Adobe RGB mode in Photoshop ? At least when I work in sRGB, I get a better idea of the final output for web..

Doesn't anybody here view there images electronically outside Photoshop ? Doesn't it bother you to see them differently in whatever viewer you are using than in Photoshop with Adobe RGB (1998) as working space ? .

I also want to point out that when I say I see them differently from one working space to another, It's not like night and day. The colors look OK to me in both color spaces. The Adobe RGB (1998) just looks as if I've boosted the saturation and perhaps added a tiny bit of warmth. Actually, I'm not sure I like it better..

I understand about the advantages of this working space if somebody has the intention of printing the images. I'm not sure I fully understand the other advantages..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #14

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

Michel F wrote:.

My monitor is a Samsung CRT. Could I use Adobe RGB 1998 on my monitoras well ? .

Not really. A few rather expensive monitors are capable of a widercolor space that's close to AdobeRGB. Again this is anoversimplification, but every device has a colorspace. For exampleyou can print hues that you cannot display and you can display huesyou cannot print. sRGB was designed around a "typical" CRT as aminimum colorspace that is likely to look right on most monitors.What you would want to do is create a profile for your monitor thatwould define what colors it's fully capable of. To do this, youwould need to buy a hardware/software package for profiling (e.g.Gretag-MacBeth Eye-One Display 2 or Color Vision Spyder 2 PRO).

This may be better thannothing, but it still will make assumptions on how you setup yourmonitor w.r.t. brightness, contrast, and color temperature. (AlsoCRT monitors change both as they warm up while on and as they ageover the years.).

Erik.

Thanks Erik. Of the color calibration devices you mention, which one is the least complicated to use ?  Do all of these work with LCD's too ? .

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #15

Michel F wrote:.

How can I know if the file (after editing) was converted properly tosRGB ? Does color profiling info show in Exif data ? .

There is a tag for colorspace. Windows will show it under Properties -> Summary then Advanced as Color Representation.

Erik..

Comment #16

Michel F wrote:.

Thanks Erik. Of the color calibration devices you mention, which one.

Is the least complicated to use ?  Do all of these work with LCD'stoo ? .

I use the Gretag-MacBeth Eye-One. It's pretty simple. And yes, most will work with LCDs as well..

Erik..

Comment #17

Michel F wrote:.

So let's say I edit my photos in Photoshop for viewing in an imageviewer and on the web. As I understand it, on the web, people willnot see my pictures as I see them in Photoshop when I use Adobe RGBright ? They would see them more as RGB or sRGB (as I see them in myimage viewer or close to it depending on monitor calibration,graphics card, etc.)..

That's a good summary..

What advantage would I then have of editing mypictures in the Adobe RGB mode in Photoshop ? .

Very little. Here is one hypothetical: you are doing two color adjustments. In AdobeRGB both adjustments stay in the color space and the final result can even be converted to sRGB. In sRGB, the first adjustment clips because it goes outside of the defined space. Even if the second adjustment pulls it back, it will be incorrect because of the clipping. In the real world this may happen only very occasionally for highly saturated colors..

Doesn't anybody here view there images electronically outsidePhotoshop ? Doesn't it bother you to see them differently in whateverviewer you are using than in Photoshop with Adobe RGB (1998) asworking space ? .

I try to use color managed applications wherever I can. The only app I use regularly w/o color manage is the web browser..

Erik..

Comment #18

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

Michel F wrote:.

How can I know if the file (after editing) was converted properly tosRGB ? Does color profiling info show in Exif data ? .

There is a tag for colorspace. Windows will show it under Properties-> Summary then Advanced as Color Representation.

Michel, I also find it handy to leave the Info palette opened in Photoshop with thigns like colour space showing there so I don't get confused with what space I'm working in. Following conversion from aRGB to sRGB, if the info palette shows you the colour space is sRGB (which it will), you can safely save as sRGB..

Also, when you go to Save As, the dialog give you a check box to include the ICC profile, with the profile stated beside it..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #19

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

John down under wrote:.

Hi Erik. Your statement is one of the most commonly repeated mythsabout colour management..

It's just an oversimplification. Since sRGB was defined aroundstandard monitor phosphors, it's likely the closest approximation toan unprofiled monitor. (And we're also ignoring 1.8 vs. 2.2 gamma.).

Hi Erik. There's a fine line between accuracy and pramatism. I can live with you saying your statement is just an oversimplification. However, I'm mindful of the fact that it can be misleading to say that non-colour aware apps assume sRGB as that implies that they colour manage to sRGB, which they don't. You and I know that, but most people don't. Many people even assume they are viewing true sRGB in their non-colour aware viewers and browsers just because they've calibrated and profiled their display systems to 6500K and gamma 2.2.

It's close, but deviates markedly from the 2.2 gamma curve in the darker areas. Gamma 1.8 is rare for monitors. The hangover from Apple printers with a gamma of 1.8 has disappeared, although there may be other reasons for choosing to use gamma 1.8 for monitor tone response..

CRT monitors are generally closer to sRGB than LCD monitors are, and LCD monitors are way more popular and common than CRT monitors for image viewing now. Still, most monitors, including LCD monitors, except for wide gamut monitors, still give a good enough non-colour managed display of sRGB images for general viewing..

Or convert to sRGB and use 'Save As', which preserves EXIF data..

To convert use "Edit->Convert to Profile" and then sRGB IEC61966-2.1in the "Destination Space"..

Good idea to point that out to reduce assumptions. Thanks..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #20

Czeglin wrote:.

Hi Michel. Nobody has explained to you what is happening, so here goes..

RGB images consist of triplets of three numbers for each pixel (an R,a G and a B value for each pixel). Each triplet represents aparticular real world colour in each colour space, ie the colours aredifferent from each other in different colour spaces. The samenumbers are used, but they represent different colours..

Adobe RGB 1998 (aRGB) is a wider colour space than sRGB. That meansthat the RGB triplets represent wider (more intense) colours in theaRGB space than they do in the sRGB space..

If you have an aRGB image that you work on in Photoshop, it shouldlook ok on your monitor. Your monitor most likely has a responsethat's probably closer to sRGB than to aRGB. Photoshop adjusts thecolours so that they look ok even though you're not really seeingaRGB colours..

If you look at that same image using a non colour aware app, likemany image viewers and web browsers, there is no adjustment todisplay properly. The image RGB values are just sent straight toyour display system and the result is whatever the system's nativeresponse is, even if you have calibrated and profiled. There is nocolour adjustment/conversion..

Numbers that represent colours in the aRGB colour space are smallerthan the numbers that represent the same colours in the sRGB colourspace. When you use a non-colour aware app to view an aRGB image, itsends those RGB values to your display system. Your system has aresponse that's closer to sRGB, so the colours end up being more likethe colours that those numbers would represent in the sRGB colourspace, ie the colours will be more muted. Remember, this is only arough approximation. There is no understanding of any colour spaceby the application in this process..

If instead you viewed an sRGB image in a non-colour aware app, theapp would still just send the RGB values straight to the displaysystem without conversion, but the colours would look closer to whatyou would expect for an sRGB image because the display system is inthe ballpark of an sRGB response..

If you want to use aRGB for processing for printing, no problem.Just make sure you convert he image to sRGb before saving for viewingin a non-colour aware app like many image viewers and web browsers.Choosing Save for Web in Photoshop converts to sRGb by default. Iprefer to convert to sRGB separately and then use Save As inPhotoshop to preserve EXIF data..

When you convert an image from aRGB to sRGB in Photoshop, theprogram uses a rendering intent to decide how to make the aRGBcolours fit into the sRGB colour space. If none of the colours inyour aRGB image are outside the sRGB gamut, then the colours are justremapped to use new RGB numbers that work in the new colour space.If some of the aRGB image colours are outside the available gamut ofthe sRGB space, some adjustment of real world colour has to occur tocreate colours that fit in the sRGB space. Once that colour isdecided, the appropriate RGB value is set for the new space torepresent that new colour. Conversion from one colour space toanother involves changing the RGB values of the image so that theylook right in the new colour space. Conversion alters RGB values..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10.

For someone who had no idea of what color space means (me), that wasilluminating. Thank you!.

No worries. I hoped it wasn't too confusing..

I presume the image itself stores some sort of information about thecolor space?.

Yes, it can, which is safest to avoid incorrect assumptions, but it's also possible to just the image without colour space information, generally with sRGB colour space images that are going to be posted for web viewing, largely in non-colour aware viewers. I almost always save the ICC profile with the image using the Photoshop Save As dialog with the ICC checbox checked. That also saves EXIF data..

Or else I can imagine a lot of problems. What you'resaying is that many image programs just are not sophisticated enoughto actually make use of that data, and send the RGB triplets to themonitor as-is?.

Exactly. Some viewing applications are colour-aware and do the right conversions for image display, but some aren't colour-aware and don't do any conversion. BTW, I used the term triplet as it's meaningful to me, but it's not a standard term that I'm aware of for each set of RGB values for each pixel in the image..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #21

John down under wrote:.

I'm mindful of the fact that it can be misleading to saythat non-colour aware apps assume sRGB as that implies that theycolour manage to sRGB, which they don't..

That's not what I said. Anyway this "myth" is in the very white paper that proposed sRGB: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB.

"Image not in sRGB, does not have an embedded ICC profile, and no monitor/output device ICC profile.

This is the behavior before color management systems were added. Even though the image is assumed to be in sRGB color space, it is imaged (displayed, printed etc.) without translation to the device color space since the output profile is not available. The quality varies tremendously since output device characteristics differ greatly.".

SRGB doesn't even use gamma 2.2. It's close, butdeviates markedly from the 2.2 gamma curve in the darker areas..

See the white paper above..

Still, most monitors, including LCD monitors,except for wide gamut monitors, still give a good enough non-colourmanaged display of sRGB images for general viewing..

Which is where we are in violent agreement. Anyway, the user got the point and we should move the quibbling to something other than Beginner's..

Erik..

Comment #22

Hi Michel. I think you're still confused. RGB is not a colour space, just a colour mode. sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) aRGB are colour spaces for RGB images. They define the limits of available colours within those spaces and what real world colours the RGB values within each space correspond to..

You're seeing images quite differently in your non-colour aware web browser and Photoshop, with the images much more colourful in Photoshop..

Short answer: two likely reasons..

1. You're viewing an sRGB image that may not have an embedded profile and/or your Photoshop Color Settings are wrong and/or you're making the wrong choice when you get dialog boxes on opening images in Photoshop. Your web browser gives a reasonable approximation, but Photoshop displays it wrongly, with much exaggerated colours..

2. You're viewing an aRGB image, which Photoshop displays correctly, but your browser doesn't (muted)..

Long answer:.

Say you have an Adobe RGB 1998 (aRGB) image from your camera or that you've created in Photoshop and it has an embedded colour space of aRGB. The colours look right in Photoshop. That's not because you've set aRGB as your RGB working space in Photoshop Color Settings. It's because Photoshop is aware that your image is an aRGB image (from it's embedded colour space data) and Photoshop knows how to convert (on the fly) the colours for a believable display on your monitor for any given colour space that Photoshop knows about, including aRGB..

The default RGB working space that you specify in your Photoshop Color Settings is just a default setting, what you'll want to use most of the time. When you create an image in Photoshop, it uses that Color Settings RGB working space as the image colour space and you can then embed that space in the image by saving the ICC profile when you save the image using Save As..

When you open an RGB image in Photoshop with no embedded colour space or with a colour space different from the Photoshop Color Settings RGB working space setting, you and/or Photoshop have to decide what to do. In Photoshop Color Settings, there are some choices on how to handle missing and mismatched colour space information in Color Management Policies. You should have the Color Management Policies RGB dropdown box set to either Preserve or Convert (I recommend preserve). It's safest to have the three checkboxes checked so that you know about and control what's going on when you open an image..

Its fine to have the Photoshop Color Settings RGB working space set to aRGB, but if the image then looks a lot more intense when you open it in Photoshop than it does in a non-colour aware web browser, there a couple of obvious possibilities..

First, if the image is an sRGB colour space image, then it should look more or less ok in your web browser. If it looks noticeably more colourful in Photoshop, chances are Photoshop is treating it as if it's an aRGB image instead. Photoshop displays the brighter colours that the RGB numbers represent in the aRGB space. If Photoshop is doing that without asking you anything, chances are the colour space is not embedded and you have Color Settings > Color Management Policies > RGB set to off..

If Photoshop gives you an 'Embedded Profile Mismatch' dialog and you select 'Discard the embedded profile (don't color manage), Photoshop uses the Color Settings RGB working space (aRGB) and displays the colours corresponding to those same RGB values in the working space colour space, ie the more intense aRGB colours..

If Photoshop gives you a 'Missing Profile' dialog and you select 'Leave as is (don't color manage)', Photoshop does the same thing..

The second reason why your Photoshop display might be more colourful than your non-colour aware browser display is that you're working with an aRGB image. The colours will be muted in your non-colour aware browser because the RGB numbers are smaller for each colour in an aRGB image than they are are for an sRGB image, and your monitor will have a response to those RGB numbers that's in the ballpark of sRGB. Photoshop will understand how to properly display an image with an embedded aRGB colour space profile. Even if the aRGB space is not embedded in the image and/or you turn colour management off in Photoshop, Photoshop will treat the image as if it's in the Color Settings RGB working space unless you tell it to do something else, so it will display the image as an aRGB image..

Editing in aRGB provides for more future proofing so you dont have to re-edit if you decide to print later, or when viewing apps are routinely colour aware and monitors typically have an aRGB display. That said, your processing skills will probably be much better by then and you may want to re-edit some images anyway..

I use IE7 in a Windows XP environment, as many people do. It's too much hassle to drag every image across to Photoshop for a colour-managed look when what I see in IE gives me a fair enough idea..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #23

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

John down under wrote:.

I'm mindful of the fact that it can be misleading to saythat non-colour aware apps assume sRGB as that implies that theycolour manage to sRGB, which they don't..

That's not what I said. Anyway this "myth" is in the very white paperthat proposed sRGB: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB.

"Image not in sRGB, does not have an embedded ICC profile, and nomonitor/output device ICC profile.

This is the behavior before color management systems were added. Eventhough the image is assumed to be in sRGB color space, it is imaged(displayed, printed etc.) without translation to the device colorspace since the output profile is not available. The quality variestremendously since output device characteristics differ greatly.".

SRGB doesn't even use gamma 2.2. It's close, butdeviates markedly from the 2.2 gamma curve in the darker areas..

See the white paper above..

Still, most monitors, including LCD monitors,except for wide gamut monitors, still give a good enough non-colourmanaged display of sRGB images for general viewing..

Which is where we are in violent agreement..

No worries..

Anyway, the user got thepoint and we should move the quibbling to something other thanBeginner's..

Hi Erik. I think Michel is still confused, but I'm cool with everything else you're saying. Thanks for keeping me on my toes with how I go about trying to keep order in the face of chaos. :^).

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #24

John,.

I have over the past few years read many confusing explanations on colour space. It was therefore a joy to read your postings which clearly explain the principles involved. Thank you very much..

Markhttp://www.pbase.com/derisley..

Comment #25

Michel F wrote:snip.

I've tried it and what I don't understand is that my photos nowappear different in Photoshop with this setting compared to if I viewmy photos out of Photoshop (with an image viewer). The colors forone, are much richer..

Please note that......

(separate from the matter of whether Adobe colour space working is a good or bad idea for your situation).

... when you change the *working space* of Photoshop to AdobeRGB from it's default of sRGB, you alter how the program maps colours in any files that are brought into the program UN-tagged with their (own) colour space, whatever it happens to be .....

Since you have seen an apparent brightening of colours, this suggests that your files are ACTUALLY sRGB ones and would, therefore, need *conversion* to Adobe before they are shown correctly. As it is, they are likely being overstated and "stretched out" to fill the wider Adobe space..

So working with Colour Management switched on is NOT just a matter of.......

1) Choosing an appropriate colour space for Photoshop to use as it's "working space" (taking into account the kind of thing you do with your pictures).

2) And profiling the monitor so that it most accurately represents the colours of the file in memory...(something we should all do if we can afford the hardware).

3) It is also a matter of SHOOTING THE IMAGE IN CAMERA to the colour space you are using as your particular working space for editing..

Further to 3) above.....

I) Many cameras offer a choice of two different spaces (sRGB and Adobe).

Ii) And can write files 'tagged' or 'un-tagged' with the space they were shot in..

Iii) When opening UN-tagged files, Photoshop displays them mapped as if they are in the working space you happen to be using.... and the mapping of any open files RGB values will change (richer, or less rich colours) every time you change that working space.....

[Is this what is happening to you, MichelF ?].

Please remember: The colours are not necessarily RIGHT (meaning as the camera shot them) just because you happen to LIKE their new intensity as they are displayed on your monitor. The brighter colour COULD just be the result of sRGB colours being displayed as if they were AdobeRGB ones......

.... and that is a mistake that I think is happening here..

Naturally, if you want brighter colours you can edit to get them, but that should be done AFTER the file as shot has first been shown as accurately as possible.

....which happy state of affairs comes form.....

A) Having the *shooting space* of the camera match the *working space* of the editing program (whether it is Adobe or sRGB that you settle on)....

B) ... ideally with the image tagged with it's colour space (so that the editing proggy knows that it does NOT have to do anything with the RGB values before opening the file)....

C) .... and displaying that file's values in memory through a MONITOR PROFILE which maintains the accuracy as it hits the screen (so your eyes are not seeing the image through "rose tinted spectacles", or any other kind of casts or tonal inaccuracies generated by the monitor itself.).

Hope this is clear..

Sorry about all the UPPER CASE letters, folks!Hmmm...... I do wish we had underlining or italics available in DPReview.Regards,Baz..

Comment #26

MarkNicholas wrote:.

John,.

I have over the past few years read many confusing explanations oncolour space. It was therefore a joy to read your postings whichclearly explain the principles involved. Thank you very much..

Hi Mark. I appreciate your feedback. It's one thing for me to think I'm explaining things in a way that makes sense, but unless people tell me they get what I'm saying, I can't be sure. I know the pain of going through trying to figure out how colour management works and what happens in Windows in particular, so it's good it I can help some others to avoid some of that hassle..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #27

Barrie Davis wrote:.

Michel F wrote:snip.

I've tried it and what I don't understand is that my photos nowappear different in Photoshop with this setting compared to if I viewmy photos out of Photoshop (with an image viewer). The colors forone, are much richer..

Please note that......

(separate from the matter of whether Adobe colour space working isa good or bad idea for your situation).

... when you change the *working space* of Photoshop to AdobeRGB fromits default of sRGB, you alter how the program maps colours in anyfiles that are brought into the program UN-tagged with their (own)colour space, whatever it happens to be .....

Hi Barrie. Not necessarily. Photoshop may lead you in the direction of wanting to use the working space for untagged images, but as you would be aware you can easily (and should) set Photoshop so that it asks you and lets you decide what to do with untagged images..

Since you have seen an apparent brightening of colours, this suggeststhat your files are ACTUALLY sRGB ones and would, therefore, need*conversion* to Adobe before they are shown correctly. As it is, theyare likely being overstated and "stretched out" to fill the widerAdobe space..

Quite possibly. The other possibility I suggested is that they are aRGB images that look muted in a non-colour aware web browser, but look right (more saturated) in Photoshop..

So working with Colour Management switched on is NOT just a matterof.......

1) Choosing an appropriate colour space for Photoshop to use as its"working space" (taking into account the kind of thing you do withyour pictures).

2) And profiling the monitor so that it most accurately representsthe colours of the file in memory...(something we should all do if wecan afford the hardware).

3) It is also a matter of SHOOTING THE IMAGE IN CAMERA to the colourspace you are using as your particular working space for editing..

Further to 3) above.....

I) Many cameras offer a choice of two different spaces (sRGB and Adobe).

Ii) And can write files 'tagged' or 'un-tagged' with the space theywere shot in..

That's a worry. My cameras have always tagged images with the colour space I choose in camera..

Iii) When opening UN-tagged files, Photoshop displays them mapped asif they are in the working space you happen to be using.....

... depending on whether you ask it to confirm first ....

And themapping of any open files RGB values will change (richer, or lessrich colours) every time you change that working space.....

[Is this what is happening to you, MichelF ?].

Please remember: The colours are not necessarily RIGHT (meaning asthe camera shot them) just because you happen to LIKE their newintensity as they are displayed on your monitor. The brighter colourCOULD just be the result of sRGB colours being displayed as if theywere AdobeRGB ones......

True. Of course, you can profile your camera and use that information to get a mroe accurate display in say Photoshop..

.... and that is a mistake that I think is happening here..

Naturally, if you want brighter colours you can edit to get them, butthat should be done AFTER the file as shot has first been shown asaccurately as possible.

....which happy state of affairs comes form.....

A) Having the *shooting space* of the camera match the *workingspace* of the editing program (whether it is Adobe or sRGB that yousettle on)....

Yes, it's probably best to do that, but not necessary. You can happily shoot aRGB and then convert to sRGB when you open in Photoshop if yo only want sRGB. You might argue that you should be shooting in sRGB in that case. I'm not sure it matters too much, and if you keep the original aRGB iamge (if JPEG) for the future, then you might choose to revisit the image with it's wider aRGB gamut later on..

B) ... ideally with the image tagged with it's colour space (so thatthe editing proggy knows that it does NOT have to do anything withthe RGB values before opening the file)....

Sure. No conversion needed unless you specifically choose to convert ..

C) .... and displaying that file's values in memory through a MONITORPROFILE which maintains the accuracy as it hits the screen (so youreyes are not seeing the image through "rose tinted spectacles", orany other kind of casts or tonal inaccuracies generated by themonitor itself.).

... or at least as accurate as possible, within the limitations of the monitor's gamut..

Hope this is clear..

Sorry about all the UPPER CASE letters, folks!Hmmm...... I do wish we had underlining or italics available inDPReview..

I like the way some people use asterisks *like this*..

Regards,Baz.

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #28

John down under wrote:.

Barrie Davis wrote:.

... when you change the *working space* of Photoshop to AdobeRGB fromits default of sRGB, you alter how the program maps colours in anyfiles that are brought into the program UN-tagged with their (own)colour space, whatever it happens to be .....

Hi Barrie. Not necessarily. Photoshop may lead you in the directionof wanting to use the working space for untagged images, but as youwould be aware you can easily (and should) set Photoshop so that itasks you and lets you decide what to do with untagged images..

Yes, I know, but there are only so many exceptions that can be accommodated in a reply that one is trying to keep simple, and the behaviour of the opening dialogues is one of those complications. I mean, Adobe's own manual is pretty clear when you ALREADY know what it means (!) but it took me six read-throughs and reference to "Real World Colour Management" before I got to that stage.... How about you!?.

Moral of this story......

Go to Colour Settings Box In Photoshop, and make sure all the "Ask when..." boxes are checked. .

As it is, theyare likely being overstated and "stretched out" to fill the widerAdobe space..

Quite possibly. The other possibility I suggested is that they areaRGB images that look muted in a non-colour aware web browser, butlook right (more saturated) in Photoshop..

I was reading between his lines... but concede that either case could be true. .

Ii) And can write files 'tagged' or 'un-tagged' with the space theywere shot in..

That's a worry. My cameras have always tagged images with the colourspace I choose in camera..

I can write Adobe's unembedded if I choose... and mostly I DO choose..

Reason? My camera writes Adobes embedded/tagged files as .JPE instead of .JPG and one of my applications won't open it without conversion first. Clicking the "open as Adobe" option in the opening dialogue of PS is less irksome, so that's what I do..

Note: I keep PS's "ignore EXIF colour space info" checked as well..

Iii) When opening UN-tagged files, Photoshop displays them mapped asif they are in the working space you happen to be using.....

... depending on whether you ask it to confirm first ....

... more opening dialogue stuff. Again, I took my lead from what the OP had NOT said.....

And themapping of any open files RGB values will change (richer, or lessrich colours) every time you change that working space.....

[Is this what is happening to you, MichelF ?].

The brighter colourCOULD just be the result of sRGB colours being displayed as if theywere AdobeRGB ones......

True. Of course, you can profile your camera and use thatinformation to get a mroe accurate display in say Photoshop..

Not something I have felt the need to do, well not yet. Have you, John?.

A) Having the *shooting space* of the camera match the *workingspace* of the editing program (whether it is Adobe or sRGB that yousettle on)....

Yes, it's probably best to do that, but not necessary. You canhappily shoot aRGB and then convert to sRGB when you open inPhotoshop if yo only want sRGB..

Hmmm.... comments about Bob Newhart, and not wanting "to cover Reverse this early" come to mind!.

Http://monologues.co.uk/Bob_Newhart/Driving_Instructor.htm.

{Funnier to listen to than to read... sound file available top right corner.}.

I mean, the sheer flexibility and sophistication of PS colour management is half the problem, as far as I can see.... with almost every advisory coming with at least half a dozen legitimate exceptions, and each exception requiring explanations under all the circumstances in which it might apply!!.

Or.. put another way... Gimme a break, please! .

You might argue that you should beshooting in sRGB in that case. I'm not sure it matters too much, andif you keep the original aRGB iamge (if JPEG) for the future, thenyou might choose to revisit the image with it's wider aRGB gamut lateron..

Martin Evening says you can do quite a lot of conversions of colour space in Photoshop without doing any great harm to an individual file, so we shouldn't get our nickers in a twist about "there and back," as it were.... [apparently].

B) ... ideally with the image tagged with it's colour space (so thatthe editing proggy knows that it does NOT have to do anything withthe RGB values before opening the file)....

Sure. No conversion needed unless you specifically choose to convert ..

Quite so.. (more opening dialogue matters...).

C) .... and displaying that file's values in memory through a MONITORPROFILE which maintains the accuracy as it hits the screen (so youreyes are not seeing the image through "rose tinted spectacles", orany other kind of casts or tonal inaccuracies generated by themonitor itself.).

... or at least as accurate as possible, within the limitations ofthe monitor's gamut..

Quite so... .

Best wishes to you, John.Regards,Baz..

Comment #29

Barrie Davis wrote:Hi Baz..

Yes, I know, but there are only so many exceptions that can beaccommodated in a reply that one is trying to keep simple, and thebehaviour of the opening dialogues is one of those complications. Imean, Adobe's own manual is pretty clear when you ALREADY know whatit means (!) but it took me six read-throughs and reference to "RealWorld Colour Management" before I got to that stage.... How aboutyou!?.

Yes, plenty of reading RWCM, rereading and trying out to see what really happens. Fair point you made as well about keeping things within the realm of the OP's situation..

Moral of this story......

Go to Colour Settings Box In Photoshop, and make sure all the "Askwhen..." boxes are checked. .

Exactly, plus don't turn the Color Management Policies off..

True. Of course, you can profile your camera and use thatinformation to get a more accurate display in say Photoshop..

Not something I have felt the need to do, well not yet. Have you, John?.

I'm feeling I should. There are so many reports that Canon's DPP does a better job of colours than ACR/LR do with my 40D (and to a lesser extent 20D) that I figure I may do well to be figuring out what calibration settings to load into Lightroom. I ordered a colour chart, so I'm committed to a path now. :^) I may even load DPP and have a look..

I mean, the sheer flexibility and sophistication of PS colourmanagement is half the problem, as far as I can see.... with almostevery advisory coming with at least half a dozen legitimateexceptions, and each exception requiring explanations under all thecircumstances in which it might apply!!.

Or.. put another way... Gimme a break, please! .

LOL!.

Martin Evening says you can do quite a lot of conversions of colourspace in Photoshop without doing any great harm to an individualfile, so we shouldn't get our nickers in a twist about "there andback," as it were.... [apparently].

I can think of some exceptions, but I'm not too hung up on that one..

Best wishes to you, John.Regards,Baz.

And to you too Baz. :^).

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #30

John down under wrote:.

Barrie Davis wrote:.

Not something I have felt the need to do, well not yet. Have you, John?.

I'm feeling I should. There are so many reports that Canon's DPPdoes a better job of colours than ACR/LR do with my 40D (and to alesser extent 20D) that I figure I may do well to be figuring outwhat calibration settings to load into Lightroom. I ordered a colourchart, so I'm committed to a path now. :^) I may even load DPP andhave a look..

That's interesting. Please keep us informed..

Or.. put another way... Gimme a break, please! .

LOL!.

Martin Evening says you can do quite a lot of conversions of colourspace in Photoshop without doing any great harm to an individualfile, so we shouldn't get our nickers in a twist about "there andback," as it were.... [apparently].

I can think of some exceptions, but I'm not too hung up on that one..

Best wishes to you, John..

And to you too Baz. :^).

Ta everso. Regards,Baz..

Comment #31

Barrie Davis wrote:.

John down under wrote:.

Barrie Davis wrote:.

Not something I have felt the need to do, well not yet. Have you, John?.

I'm feeling I should. There are so many reports that Canon's DPPdoes a better job of colours than ACR/LR do with my 40D (and to alesser extent 20D) that I figure I may do well to be figuring outwhat calibration settings to load into Lightroom. I ordered a colourchart, so I'm committed to a path now. :^) I may even load DPP andhave a look..

That's interesting. Please keep us informed..

No problem. Not sure when I'll get around to profiling my cameras, but I'll post something in the 40D forum and maybe here as well to give people an idea of the pros and cons..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #32

I ordered the Colorvision Spyder. It's about time I calibrated my monitor properly and this discussion just pushed me over the top !  I remember calibrating it with the Photoshop utility which many people say is just about useless. I went on a site where there was a discussion in Mp3 format with Vincent Versace who mentioned that even in his workshops of photo enthusiasts, only 1/3 of them had calibrated monitors so I don't feel like a total ignorant..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #33

You're seeing images quite differently in your non-colour aware webbrowser and Photoshop, with the images much more colourful inPhotoshop..

Short answer: two likely reasons..

1. You're viewing an sRGB image that may not have an embeddedprofile and/or your Photoshop Color Settings are wrong and/or you'remaking the wrong choice when you get dialog boxes on opening imagesin Photoshop. Your web browser gives a reasonable approximation, butPhotoshop displays it wrongly, with much exaggerated colours..

Hi John. I've done some experimentation: The photos that I mentioned looked funky when I loaded them in Photoshop with the Adobe (1998) profile are photos that were downloaded from the net (not mine). When I open some of my own (orginal, unmodified) pics from either my Fuji F30 or Nikon D40 (shot as sRGB) I can't really tell if there is a difference in color saturation or values. Photoshop warns me that the pictures are not in the same color space and I tell it to convert them in Adobe (1998). So I guess the photos that I had the much more saturated colors (the ones from the net) probably did not have a color space embedded. Does this makes sense ? It's starting to make sense to me now..

2. You're viewing an aRGB image, which Photoshop displayscorrectly, but your browser doesn't (muted)..

Long answer:.

Say you have an Adobe RGB 1998 (aRGB) image from your camera or thatyou've created in Photoshop and it has an embedded colour space ofaRGB. The colours look right in Photoshop. That's not becauseyou've set aRGB as your RGB working space in Photoshop ColorSettings. It's because Photoshop is aware that your image is an aRGBimage (from it's embedded colour space data) and Photoshop knows howto convert (on the fly) the colours for a believable display on yourmonitor for any given colour space that Photoshop knows about,including aRGB..

The default RGB working space that you specify in your PhotoshopColor Settings is just a default setting, what you'll want to usemost of the time. When you create an image in Photoshop, it usesthat Color Settings RGB working space as the image colour space andyou can then embed that space in the image by saving the ICC profilewhen you save the image using Save As..

When you open an RGB image in Photoshop with no embedded colour spaceor with a colour space different from the Photoshop Color SettingsRGB working space setting, you and/or Photoshop have to decide whatto do. In Photoshop Color Settings, there are some choices on how tohandle missing and mismatched colour space information in ColorManagement Policies. You should have the Color Management PoliciesRGB dropdown box set to either Preserve or Convert (I recommendpreserve). It's safest to have the three checkboxes checked so thatyou know about and control what's going on when you open an image..

Its fine to have the Photoshop Color Settings RGB working space setto aRGB, but if the image then looks a lot more intense when you openit in Photoshop than it does in a non-colour aware web browser, therea couple of obvious possibilities..

First, if the image is an sRGB colour space image, then it shouldlook more or less ok in your web browser. If it looks noticeablymore colourful in Photoshop, chances are Photoshop is treating it asif it's an aRGB image instead. Photoshop displays the brightercolours that the RGB numbers represent in the aRGB space. IfPhotoshop is doing that without asking you anything, chances are thecolour space is not embedded and you have Color Settings > ColorManagement Policies > RGB set to off..

Understood (see above).

If Photoshop gives you an 'Embedded Profile Mismatch' dialog and youselect 'Discard the embedded profile (don't color manage), Photoshopuses the Color Settings RGB working space (aRGB) and displays thecolours corresponding to those same RGB values in the working spacecolour space, ie the more intense aRGB colours..

If Photoshop gives you a 'Missing Profile' dialog and you select'Leave as is (don't color manage)', Photoshop does the same thing..

The second reason why your Photoshop display might be more colourfulthan your non-colour aware browser display is that you're workingwith an aRGB image. The colours will be muted in your non-colouraware browser because the RGB numbers are smaller for each colour inan aRGB image than they are are for an sRGB image, and your monitorwill have a response to those RGB numbers that's in the ballpark ofsRGB. Photoshop will understand how to properly display an imagewith an embedded aRGB colour space profile. Even if the aRGB spaceis not embedded in the image and/or you turn colour management off inPhotoshop, Photoshop will treat the image as if it's in the ColorSettings RGB working space unless you tell it to do something else,so it will display the image as an aRGB image..

Editing in aRGB provides for more future proofing so you dont haveto re-edit if you decide to print later, or when viewing apps areroutinely colour aware and monitors typically have an aRGB display.That said, your processing skills will probably be much better bythen and you may want to re-edit some images anyway..

I use IE7 in a Windows XP environment, as many people do. It's toomuch hassle to drag every image across to Photoshop for acolour-managed look when what I see in IE gives me a fair enough idea..

Ok. Do you edit your own work in Photoshop using the Adobe RGB (1998) color space yourself ? Do you shoot with the same color space ?

Comment #34

Thanks John and Erik for taking the time to explain this subject in detail. It's appreciated..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #35

Thanks Erik. This is brilliant..

So basically, what the author says is that it's Ok to set Photoshop's color space to Adobe RGB (1998) for editing work but that it's essential to convert the file to sRGB if it's intended use is for the web. Right ? .

Would I be correct in assuming that if someone intended to print an edited photograph at some later time and save it for web use, it would be preferable for him to save the edited photograph WITH the Adobe RGB (1998) profile embedded for possible printing purposes AND save it in sRGB for web display purposes ? .

This is how I understood his explanations..

Also, It's interesting to note how he makes it so clear (with rollover examples) that without a properly calibrated monitor, image editing is just about pointless. He really nails it..

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

Http://www.gballard.net/...psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html.

Erik.

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #36

Thanks for the help. I think I'm really starting to get it with the link that Erik posted above. You might like it too..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #37

After reading through the link that you provided, I remembered just why I posted this in the first place. My color space in Photoshop had always been sRGB before ordering a book on photo editing by Scott Kelby which git me interested in color space and management and why it's important..

I'm not sure I have a right to quote the book but basically he says that sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is a thing of the past and nobody should use it today if they are serious about their photographs. Wether the photo will be edited for web or for print doesn't matter. He basically says get rid of sRGB in Photoshop. He says that Adobe RGB (1998) is better for print and has a wide gamut of colors. He doesn't give any further explanations so that fueled my curiosity to learn more..

His views are somewhat different from the author of the web page you provided. No wonder so many newbies are confused as to which is better and why...

Comment #38

He says that sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is a thing of the past and nobody should use it today if they are serious about their photographs. Wether the photo will be edited for web or for print doesn't matter..

SRGB *is* the target colorspace for the web (and the safest bet for people who don't know what's going on) if not sRGB I would be interested in what he says we should convert to for web work.....

Comment #39

G_ballard wrote:.

He says that sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is a thing of the past and nobody should use it today if they are serious about their photographs. Wether the photo will be edited for web or for print doesn't matter..

SRGB *is* the target colorspace for the web (and the safest bet forpeople who don't know what's going on) if not sRGB I would beinterested in what he says we should convert to for web work....

Well he says that he would not even recommend sRGB for modern web developpers. I love Scott Kelby's books but this time he gives very little explanation. He must explain it in some other book..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #40

It's possible he expects/thinks that all browsers are/should be color managed and all monitors profiled. Alas, that's not my world..

Erik..

Comment #41

Michel F wrote:.

Ok. Do you edit your own work in Photoshop using the Adobe RGB (1998)color space yourself ? Do you shoot with the same color space ? .

Hi Michel. I use aRGB when shooting (although I shoot RAW, so I can decice on colour space during RAW conversion). I also process in RAW, but I usually use aRGB and then convert to sRGB for positng for web viewing..

Some people recommend using Pro Photo RGB for processsing (wider gamut than aRGB), but I think it's overkill and the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #42

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

Http://www.gballard.net/...psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html.

Hi Erik. The statements in the link over-simplify things and aren't 100% correct, although they aren't too far off in many cases for practical pruposes..

While non-colour managed apps may 'assume' sRGB, they don't do anything about it. They just send the image RGB values (unmodified) to the display system, assuming that the display system response is close enough to sRGB for the image to look close enough to being right. They don't convert to sRGB for the monitor being used..

Readers could easily assume that if they properly calibrate/profile their monitors, then they should see the right colours (even in a non-colour aware browser)..

Also, the statement in that site about not including ICC profiles with images because it adds about 4KB to image sizes and therefore greatly increases the download size and time to download the page is an overstatement. Most images are way more than 4KB, which means that an extra 4KB per image will hardly be noticed by most people, especially on broadband..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #43

G_ballard wrote:.

He says that sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is a thing of the past and nobody should use it today if they are serious about their photographs. Wether the photo will be edited for web or for print doesn't matter..

SRGB *is* the target colorspace for the web (and the safest bet forpeople who don't know what's going on) if not sRGB I would beinterested in what he says we should convert to for web work....

Of course Scott K would say to convert to sRGB for the web. Even if he thinks the Mac world is better (which it is in may ways; BTW I'm a Windows user), he knows most of the web is accessed by Windows IE users..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #44

John down under wrote:.

Michel F wrote:.

Ok. Do you edit your own work in Photoshop using the Adobe RGB (1998)color space yourself ? Do you shoot with the same color space ? .

Hi Michel. I use aRGB when shooting (although I shoot RAW, so I candecice on colour space during RAW conversion). I also process inRAW, but I usually use aRGB and then convert to sRGB for positng forweb viewing..

Some people recommend using Pro Photo RGB for processsing (widergamut than aRGB), but I think it's overkill and the advantages areoutweighed by the disadvantages..

I'm curious about Pro Photo RGB. Is this a new color space in CS or perhaps in a RAW editor ? .

I'll set my camera to Adobe RGB and see how it goes..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10.

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #45

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

It's possible he expects/thinks that all browsers are/should be colormanaged and all monitors profiled. Alas, that's not my world..

Erik.

I don't know if he's a mac guy. All I know is that his books are gold to me. He has a way of sharing his knowledge that is easy to understand..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #46

Michel F wrote:.

Kinnaird wrote:.

Srgb is a gamut (colour space) created to describe all the colours amonitor can show. Imagine it as a pool full of colours, there aremany colour spaces like different sizes of pools. Adobe RGB is a verylarge colour space so shooting and keeping your work in Adobe RGBgives your image much more colour range(deeper broader pool). Howeverif your camera only shoots in srgb and you only ever show or viewyour images on monitors srgb may be ok for you (some 4x6 machineprinters use srgb files too)If you are working on and savingimages in photoshop for various uses, best to convert to Adobe RGB,the colour in the image does change, photoshop has a formula for theconversion..

Hard to quickly and simply describe this hope I haven't confused you..

I think I understand the concept. maybe my questions were confusing.I have a D40 and I shoot in sRGB IIIa. When I open an original(untouched) photo in Photoshop, the colors are different because ituses RGB (1998)..

You mean Adobe RGB (1998). When you open in Photoshop, the colours look different from what? You mean different from in ACDSEE? Maybe your version of ACDSEE isn't colour aware. Maybe you've set up Photoshop to effectively assign the aRGB space to your sRGB image, which will make the colours much more vibrant (and inaccurate). Without knowing what you're really doing, it's harder to explain what's going on..

I understand this. What I want to know is when Iedit my photos and then save them in whatever format (jpg or tif),does it save these pictures with with the embeded Adobe RGB (1998)profile ? .

In Photoshop, if you use Save As and check the ICC box, then the profile gets saved with the image. The profile won't be aRGB just because you've set aRGB as the working space, unless you or Photoshop has decided to make the iamge as aRGB image. Once again, without knowing exactly what you're doing, it's harder to explain what's happening..

If so, is there a way to view my (edited) pictures in thesame way I would see them in Photoshop ? Basically, I'm confused bythe fact that I see them differently in Photoshop than in my imageviewer which is ACDsee by the way. It's a very old version but itdoes what I want..

If your image is an aRGB image and ACDSEE isn't colour aware, then the image will look way different in ACDSEE (much more muted), because the RGB values of the image are being sent by ACDSEE to your display system without being converted to look right. Colour aware apps convert correctly for display..

There is an Adobe mode in the Nikon D40. Is it the same as the one inPhotoshop ? .

In your D40, Adobe must mean that the camera creates image files in the Adobe RGB (1998) colour space. It's the same colour space as Adobe RGB (1998) in Photoshop..

Honestly I've been going to the Nikon forum since I gotmy camera and everybody shoots in mode sRGB Ia or IIIa.Thanks..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #47

Michel F wrote:.

John down under wrote:.

Michel F wrote:.

Ok. Do you edit your own work in Photoshop using the Adobe RGB (1998)color space yourself ? Do you shoot with the same color space ? .

Hi Michel. I use aRGB when shooting (although I shoot RAW, so I candecice on colour space during RAW conversion). I also process inRAW, but I usually use aRGB and then convert to sRGB for positng forweb viewing..

Some people recommend using Pro Photo RGB for processsing (widergamut than aRGB), but I think it's overkill and the advantages areoutweighed by the disadvantages..

I'm curious about Pro Photo RGB. Is this a new color space in CS orperhaps in a RAW editor ? .

PPRGB is a colour space that's wider again than aRGB. Don't worry about whether it makes sense for you until you have your aRGB workflow under control..

I'll set my camera to Adobe RGB and see how it goes..

OK, as long as you understand how to manage aRGB colour space images through Photoshop or other colour-aware apps..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #48

Michel F wrote:.

Erik Magnuson wrote:.

It's possible he expects/thinks that all browsers are/should be colormanaged and all monitors profiled. Alas, that's not my world..

Erik.

I don't know if he's a mac guy. All I know is that his books are goldto me. He has a way of sharing his knowledge that is easy tounderstand..

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury.

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #49

Since this has been mentioned in the discussion, what image viewers deal with color profiles effectively (eg. can read and interpret color profiles) ? .

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #50

Michel F wrote:.

Since this has been mentioned in the discussion, what image viewersdeal with color profiles effectively (eg. can read and interpretcolor profiles) ? .

AFAIK, those would be Safari and Firefox 3 beta, but others may know better. Safari doesn't do everything that IE does (and probably vice versa), so you may need both if you don't want to lose some functionality for some websites, depending on what you want to look at..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #51

John down under wrote:.

Michel F wrote:.

Since this has been mentioned in the discussion, what image viewersdeal with color profiles effectively (eg. can read and interpretcolor profiles) ? .

AFAIK, those would be Safari and Firefox 3 beta, but others may knowbetter. Safari doesn't do everything that IE does (and probably viceversa), so you may need both if you don't want to lose somefunctionality for some websites, depending on what you want to lookat..

John, I meant offline image viewers..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10.

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury..

Comment #52

Michel F wrote:.

John down under wrote:.

Michel F wrote:.

Since this has been mentioned in the discussion, what image viewersdeal with color profiles effectively (eg. can read and interpretcolor profiles) ? .

AFAIK, those would be Safari and Firefox 3 beta, but others may knowbetter. Safari doesn't do everything that IE does (and probably viceversa), so you may need both if you don't want to lose somefunctionality for some websites, depending on what you want to lookat..

John, I meant offline image viewers..

Gotcha now. I don't know, apart from Photoshop and other editing apps. If I have Photoshop open, I drag images into it for a colour managed look if it matters to me at the time..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10.

Http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury.

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..

Comment #53

The statements in the link over-simplify things and aren't 100% correct, although they aren't too far off in many cases for practical purposes..

Be fair, 100% is a pretty high standard in any technical statement....

While non-colour managed apps may 'assume' sRGB...They just send the image RGB values (unmodified) to the display system....

That is actually more correct than how I present the information, but my explanation is to make very basic points and introduce terminology..

Also, the statement in that site about not including ICC profiles with images because it adds about 4KB to image sizes and therefore greatly increases the download size and time to download the page is an overstatement. Most images are way more than 4KB, which means that an extra 4KB per image will hardly be noticed by most people, especially on broadband..

Your point is certainly valid..

In my world, I may have over 100 thumbnails and dozens of photos on one page.http://www.kumeyaay.info/pow_wow.htmlhttp://www.sycuanfire.com/wildland_division/fire_academy_2008.html.

Plus, I may have an image sliced into many pieces.http://www.kumeyaay.info/documentary/.

That additional 4k per image, per slice, will add up fast and slow up people who use dial-up..

Further, I may have an image's edges or background color matched to blend into a filled box or page color. ON A MAC, if I tag the image, it will mismatch the box/page color on managed browsers..

If I publish untagged sRGB, the box/page color will match in all browsers and blend correctly...

Comment #54

G_ballard wrote:.

Hi GB. It's great to hear from you. It's always good to get some commentary straight from the originator to help balance the discussion about the originator's work..

The statements in the link over-simplify things and aren't 100% correct, although they aren't too far off in many cases for practical purposes..

Be fair, 100% is a pretty high standard in any technical statement....

True, but not always so hard. This stuff isn't rocket science and I'm no expert, but I know enough to be aware that there's an awful lot of misinformation being passed around by people who unwittingly repeat incorrect information they read, while also using that incorrect information to also make it's practical application incorrect. You're certainly not alone in advocating keeping things simple for beginners even if it's slightly inaccurate. This is not the first time I've had this same kind of discussion and I can appreciate your point of view. For some people, your approach will be more appropriate and for some people, my approach will work better..

While non-colour managed apps may 'assume' sRGB...They just send the image RGB values (unmodified) to the display system....

That is actually more correct than how I present the information, butmy explanation is to make very basic points and introduce terminology..

OK. I just think it's not a bad idea to get people on the right track so they don't have to unlearn later when getting things right with image colour management might matter more. The first step is to recognise the need to unlearn, which is much harder if you think that what you 'know' is correct..

Also, the statement in that site about not including ICC profiles with images because it adds about 4KB to image sizes and therefore greatly increases the download size and time to download the page is an overstatement. Most images are way more than 4KB, which means that an extra 4KB per image will hardly be noticed by most people, especially on broadband..

Your point is certainly valid..

In my world, I may have over 100 thumbnails and dozens of photos onone page.http://www.kumeyaay.info/pow_wow.htmlhttp://www.sycuanfire.com/wildland_division/fire_academy_2008.html.

Plus, I may have an image sliced into many pieces.http://www.kumeyaay.info/documentary/.

That additional 4k per image, per slice, will add up fast and slow uppeople who use dial-up..

Good point. As you say, there are certainly plenty of situations where the additional file size to allow for ICC profiles is not so practical, but probably more situations where the benefits can potentially outweigh that cost. At the same time, for someone on dialup, 100s of images on a page is already going to be a problem for downloading even without the overhead of embedded ICC profiles..

Further, I may have an image's edges or background color matched toblend into a filled box or page color. ON A MAC, if I tag the image,it will mismatch the box/page color on managed browsers.If I publish untagged sRGB, the box/page color will match in allbrowsers and blend correctly..

Yes, that's certainly a practicality to consider..

Thanks again for your reply and I'm glad you had a chance to add to the discussion to balance things a bit better..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D, Fuji F100fd, Fuji F10..

Comment #55

Be fair, 100% is a pretty high standard in any technical statement....

True, but not always so hard....

Whatever is said, any number of people will have a need to make rocket science out of it and confuse the issues..

OK. I just think it's not a bad idea to get people on the right track so they don't have to unlearn later when getting things right.

While your explanation is technically more accurate to what is going on, I can prove mine in Photoshop by Assigning MonitorRGB or View> Proof SetUp> Monitor RGB, so I can say we are both correct (and that has to be a good thing).....

Comment #56

G_ballard wrote:.

Be fair, 100% is a pretty high standard in any technical statement....

True, but not always so hard....

Whatever is said, any number of people will have a need to makerocket science out of it and confuse the issues..

That's possible..

OK. I just think it's not a bad idea to get people on the right track so they don't have to unlearn later when getting things right.

While your explanation is technically more accurate to what is goingon, I can prove mine in Photoshop by Assigning MonitorRGB or View>Proof SetUp> Monitor RGB, so I can say we are both correct (and thathas to be a good thing)....

That would of course be effectively the same as turning off colour management or using a non-colour managed application. What explanation are you saying you can prove in Photoshop by doing that? I'm happy if we're in violent agreement, which we mostly are..

Your website page is indeed quite useful. I had another look just then without the context of the other posts in this thread and it didn't strike me this time that what you present is inaccurate. That suggests to me that it's really a non-issue, in line with what you're suggesting. :^).

You may be aware that Firefox 3 includes colour management (which is unfortunately switched off by default and doesn't have a simple options setting to turn it on), but it's still only a beta version (up to beta 5), so it's your call on whether it qualifies for your list of colour managed browsers..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D, Fuji F100fd, Fuji F10..

Comment #57

What explanation are you saying you can prove in Photoshop by doing that?.

SPECIFICALLY:.

Photoshop> Edit> Assign Profile (Monitor RGB, i.e., the custom monitor ICC Profile).

AND.

Photoshop> View> Proof Setup> Monitor RGB (which is the same as the default custom monitor ICC Profile).

On a Mac for all practical purposes this is what ColorSync/OSX is doing in the background when it displays untagged color and/or color in unmanaged applications..

As Grandma used to say, "the PROOF is in the pudding" (and the PROOF is where I rest my case)...

Comment #58

Michel F wrote:.

Since this has been mentioned in the discussion, what image viewersdeal with color profiles effectively (eg. can read and interpretcolor profiles) ? .

From the BB Pro help:.

"BreezeBrowser Pro can use color profiles to help display images with accurate colors. In order use color profiles for display a suitable display monitor profile should be selected and enabled. Color profiles are normally stored in one of the following directories: C:\Windows\System\Color on Windows 98 and Windows ME systems, C:\WinNT\System32\Color on Windows 2000 and C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color on Windows XP. When the monitor profile is enabled BreezeBrowser Pro will read color profiles embedded in JPEG and TIFF image files and convert the colors for display on the monitor. You may also specify a default profile to be used for images that don't contain a color profile.".

Http://www.breezesys.com/BreezeBrowser/index.htm.

Wayne..

Comment #59

G_ballard wrote:.

What explanation are you saying you can prove in Photoshop by doing that?.

SPECIFICALLY:.

Photoshop> Edit> Assign Profile (Monitor RGB, i.e., the custommonitor ICC Profile).

AND.

Photoshop> View> Proof Setup> Monitor RGB (which is the same as thedefault custom monitor ICC Profile).

On a Mac for all practical purposes this is what ColorSync/OSXis doing in the background when it displays untagged color and/orcolor in unmanaged applications..

As Grandma used to say, "the PROOF is in the pudding" (and the PROOFis where I rest my case)..

I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking what you're proving by using those settings, which are effectively the same as not colour managing (as opposed to turing off colour management in Photoshop, which then means Photoshop uses the default working space to show images) or using a non-colour aware app like most Windows web browsers..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D, Fuji F100fd, Fuji F10..

Comment #60

I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking what you're proving by using those settings,.

What settings?.

If you mean my SPECIFICALLY outline above (Assign MonitorRGB, and SoftProof MonitorRGB) that effectively shows what OSX/ColorSync (and unmanaged applications) do to untagged color on Mac..

Which are effectively the same as not colour managing (as opposed to turing off colour management in Photoshop,.

You cannot 'turn color management off' in Photoshop saying that is very confusing Photoshop is always going to display through a Source Profile-to-Monitor Profile Conversion..

Which then means Photoshop uses the default working space to show images).

That's a bit unclear, what do you mean 'uses'?.

Photoshop ASSIGNS/APPLIES/ASSUMES it's Working RGB ICC profile if told not to color manage the file (then it Converts to Monitor RGB to display the monitor PROOF based on Photoshop's Working RGB)..

If the file's Source Space does not equal Photopshop's working space and we tell it not to color manage the file Photoshop Assumes the wrong profile and it hoses all conversions, including monitor space and prints space..

Or using a non-colour aware app like most Windows web browsers..

I am pretty sure Windoze Vista ASSIGNS/APPLIES/ASSUMES sRGB to untagged color, at least in Safair, the PROOF is in my earlier link in the sRGB rollover if you have a Vista PC to look at it.....

Comment #61

G_ballard wrote:.

I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking what you're proving by using those settings,.

What settings?.

If you mean my SPECIFICALLY outline above (Assign MonitorRGB, andSoftProof MonitorRGB) that effectively shows what OSX/ColorSync(and unmanaged applications) do to untagged color on Mac..

Thanks for explaining. As you'd know, it also shows what happens with untagged images on a Windows PC, or when viewing with a non-colour aware viewer/browser like IE7..

Which are effectively the same as not colour managing (as opposed to turing off colour management in Photoshop,.

You cannot 'turn color management off' in Photoshop saying that isvery confusing Photoshop is always going to display through aSource Profile-to-Monitor Profile Conversion..

Sorry for the confusion..

By turning colour management off in Photoshop, I mean Photoshop Color Settings - Color Management Policies - Off, then choosing not to manage colour if prompted when opening images. As you say, Photoshop then displays the image as if it was in the default working space, which as you say is different from the display you get from a non-colour aware app. The exception is if you set Color Settings - Working Spaces - RGB to Monitor RGB. In that case, colour management really is off and untaged images will be displayed without any conversion. Photoshop 'uses' the default working space of Monitor RGB as the image working space for the purpose of display conversion, but there's nothing to convert from or to as the image is already effectively in the monitor space for display purposes..

Which then means Photoshop uses the default working space to show images).

That's a bit unclear, what do you mean 'uses'?.

Yes, I could have been clearer. I mean Photoshop will display untagged images for which you tell Photoshop not to manage colour as if the image RGB values are for Photoshop's default working space..

Photoshop ASSIGNS/APPLIES/ASSUMES it's Working RGB ICC profile if toldnot to color manage the file (then it Converts to Monitor RGB todisplay the monitor PROOF based on Photoshop's Working RGB)..

The exception is where the default working space is Monitor RGB, in which case Photoshop does no conversion. There's nothing to convert. You might wonder why anyone would want to do that. I've seen tutorials on thehttp://www that get you to do just that as a method of ensuring that Photoshop displays images the same as non-colour aware apps like non-colour aware web browsers do. I kid you not, even though I don't support that approach. It's much better to use the custom view - Monitor RGB that you mentioned while retaining colour management overall when you're not doing a monitor RGB view..

If the file's Source Space does not equal Photopshop's working space and we tell it not to color manage the file Photoshop Assumesthe wrong profile and it hoses all conversions, including monitorspace and prints space..

Agreed..

Or using a non-colour aware app like most Windows web browsers..

I am pretty sure Windoze Vista ASSIGNS/APPLIES/ASSUMES sRGB tountagged color, at least in Safair, the PROOF is in my earlier linkin the sRGB rollover if you have a Vista PC to look at it....

Yes, it does in Safari, but I specifically stated non-colour aware apps, which is true for most Windows web browsers, even though I agree it's not true for Windows Safari and Firefox 3 (beta), which are the only exceptions I know of. The vast majority of Windows users browse with IE, as you probably know. My statement about most web browsers should perhaps have said most web browsing to be clear about specifically including numbers of users of non-colour aware browsers, ie the vast majority of Windows web browsing..

Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Fuji F10..

Comment #62

I will leave the "turn (Photoshop) color management off" discussion where I left it on my last post: You cannot turn PS color management off..

Photoshop "Working RGB equals Monitor RGB" because this is such bad useless scenario, I won't go there, except to say that is how Photoshop 4 deals with color..

For 99.99% of users, it makes little sense to work in a custom monitor space because the only monitor your color will display correctly on is yours (and that won't be the same in a few weeks)..

I am pretty sure I got right HOW Windows Vista handles color (in color-managed and un-managed applications), including Internet Explorer..

Look at the tagged/untagged sRGB rollover in IE under Vista. I recall there was zero change when I looked under Vista. That tells me Vista Assumes sRGB on untagged color, the same as FireFox and Safari..

BACK TO THE OP #1 question:.

Adobe RGB (1998) is one of the worst color spaces to use outside of color-managed apps especially on the internet because aRGB is device in-dependent and so far outside the target colorspace of the web: sRGB..

AdobeRGB needs to be CONVERTED to a device ICC profile or it PROOFS incorrectly..

Try e-mailing the author for more info.I would like to read what he writes back......

Comment #63

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.