Images I have uploaded do not display the same Photosop as viewed in a browser (viewed in Safari, or Firefox on Apple Cinema display OS10.4.11) . The web images appear de-saturated and a bit washed out. (I use Adobe RGB 1998)
I’m a print imaging specialist, not a web pro. But I am enhancing a large number of images for various web galleries & would like to have the web images appear as I intended them. I would prefer not to add a compensating curve.
Exporting the images with "save for web" does not help. Neither does converting to sRGB.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
1) calibrate monitor to 2.2 gamma, d65/6500 (check here first, you are likely at 1.8)
2) convert to sRGB before Save For Web (or ImageReady)
3) don’t embed ICC profiles
this subject still has some goofy pitfalls to explain it completely here — like 1.8 Mac gamma, high-gamut monitors, Mac OSX/ColorSync — but the above 3 tips are the safest moves and represent professional workflow
Actually, because of the way that Safari and Firefox (providing the user has activated CM) manage color, and because more and more of your viewers will be using Wide Gamut monitors, you MUST embed the sRGB Profile if you want anyone using the Web to have a hope of seeing the image as you intend.
The latest Flash Player 10 is now Color Managed too which also which helps with Flash-powered Galleries.
However, if your viewers have wide gamut monitors and use a non color-managed browser (like Opera) you haven’t a prayer anyway!
I beg to disagree on that amplified statement… embedding profiles can cause problems like bloated page sizes, mismatched blending of page-graphic color, also, it is a false sense of security for people who don’t understand the target color space, for example if they post Adobe RGB on the web…
embedding profiles to accommodate the small percentage of Mac users with ‘wide gamut’ monitors isn’t worth the baggage that goes along with it, INO, your milage may vary
Posting untagged Adobe RGB images on the web is a guarantee of your colors looking like crap on just anybody’s monitor, regardless of platform or browser used. :/
they are not that big and if a color managed application is used it looks like it should. if not who cares? Its going to look like sh!t on 90% of all monitors anyway.
CS4 makes it simple to embed both the Profile and selected Metadata
and the addition to file-size is minuscule.
Please show me a web page filled with Page Color #175 100 32, and fill two Photoshop sRGB files with the same color. strip the profile in one .jpg, tag the another .jpg.
Then tell me what browser version only see one color on the page, if any…
Well, yes they "MUST" IF they want to have any hope of as many of their audience as possible seeing their images as they intend.
I still think that returning that wide-gamut monitor was less than wise because I think that it is essential that anyone who is preparing work for the web needs to be fully aware of what our viewers are seeing,
Just closing your eyes to the realities of the world is a bit short-sighted IMHO.
Its going to look like sh!t on 90% of all monitors anyway
the people with properly-calibrated monitors will view untagged sRGB properly
I don’t care about the other 90% — the people who count will see good color
likewise, Macs with wide-gamut screens and Macs calibrated to 1.8 gamma aren’t my concern BECAUSE the Apple approach to web color is goofy and impossible to guess
+++++
I really don’t think the future is tagging files on the internet
if the OS can be told to Assume sRGB — like Windows Vista — the problem is solved
yes, but (excuse that) like I wrote earlier, the Windows operating system Assumes untagged RGB is sRGB, and sRGB is the only RGB target on the internet right now — so the Windows boxes don’t have the problem on the internet or in unmanaged applications
I know because I tested mine on Windows Vista and it was good
Obviously it’s not necessary to tag all color files on a web page. Just the images with colors that matter. In a huge majority of web pages, colors don’t seem to matter to the webmasters anyway.
Converting the profile won’t work. You have to assign the profile. You stated you are using Adobe RGB. Adobe RGB has a larger gamut. That we know. sRGB has a smaller gamut. If you convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB or ‘save for web’ which will do the same, the colors will de-saturate.
Try to assign a profile and see if that keeps your colors the way you want them. Assigning the profile should take the image from Adobe RGB to sRGB without a perception of change to you including saturation.
opps… after testing, assigning does fix what he felt was the de-saturation and while the profile is now a ‘liar’ as Ann puts it, it works in Color Management browsers (of course) and as wallpaper on the desktop.
This is why I output from ACR to sRGB knowing that my final is going for a web presence. Converting will take the color out of the image while outputting to sRGB from the start will at least keep me out of trouble so to speak. Otherwise, one is stuck with having to go and increase saturation and use curves to re-adjust post conversion.
I have assigned the sRGB in the past but guess what ever purposes I had at the time, got away with it. These weren’t web images.
I knew I was going to regret not taking the time to explain that part Ann. I am fully calibrated using a Monaco Optix Pro XR and ColorEyes along with 2.2 Gamma.
What I meant by converting will ‘take the color out of the image’ was that it was converting the image to a smaller gamut. Which is taking the color out, or giving that appearance.
Yes, I know that the colors are being re-mapped but I didn’t want to go through all that as you already had, so I used a phrase I felt the original poster would understand.
Truthfully, as you may already know, I just came to the mac from the pc side, and have gone through what the original poster has experienced. So that is why I output images from ACR in sRGB. I don’t seem to recall on my pc using PS7.1 when converting to web the same issues. I almost feel that the images you had in an Adobe RGB workspace came out better or closer as intended when converting to Web and that is why we did that process and not converting to sRGB but intentionally saved for web.
I am not even sure at this point if my Creative Suite Colorspace is correct – which is currently set for North America General Purpose 2 when I AM profiling my monitor with ColorEyes.
Most of my work has thus far been presentations on the monitor I calibrate and show my work with. Soon, I was going to build a web gallery for my work, and was hoping that outputting the colorspace to sRGB with ACR was going to solve any problems like the original poster stated.
I do not want to have to worry about which browsers currently manage colors and which do not. To me this has all been a horrible system.
I can see g ballard’s point of not embedding a profile as when working on a pc, one seems to get better results as one thinks the default will basically be sRGB. But images seem to display more closely on a pc with their browsers than a mac and their browsers which I am sure others would argue. I do think the gamma 1.8 had a good deal to do with this. I almost feel Ramon typing away now an arguement on pc/mac.
Now, as you may remember, I also just formatted my mac and re-installed everything and did indeed gain valuable space on my Macbook Pro 17. But I didn’t set up at first the output for Bridge to be sRGB and it was defaulted at Adobe RGB so I have another mess to deal with as I had the jpgs being opened first in ACR so those images all now have the wrong profile. Bummer.
Ann, I appreciate your advice, as always. I scan often in threads for your name to see what take you have.
Unfortunately, in this case, I cannot use North Am Web Internet as I work other project in CMYK and print. What I guess I will do is set up my Creative Suite Color Space for North American Prepress 2 and write actions to finalize the images for taking my jpgs from my DNG files.
Then I will look at the final results and have other actions to add saturation or curves to get the image back to what I want to see and allow the image to have a sRGB profile. I do not think using browsers that are color managed is the answer quite yet. Soon, but not yet. I can write some code on my web pages to request that the end user use a color managed browser but that is not the answer.
The answer will eventually be color managed browsers and apps but for now it is hit and miss. Xee is a great little program for the mac but is not color managed for example. But many use it.
I will just use Preserve Embedded Profiles and now that ACR has the choices on how to open jpg/tiff files that include using embedded profiles, that will help. I don’t know why they call it "Automatically open jpgs with settings" when I assume the settings are the embedded profiles.
I will continue to output my files in 16bit from ACR to PS and convert to 8bit later. Funny how every book out there suggests editing in 16 bit but all the screen shots they use of ACR shows their workflow options as 8 bit. Hum….
I am not sure if you open a jpg in ACR with an embedded profile and 8 bit and if your workflow is another profile 16 bit, who wins out but will test and go from there.
I looked at converting to working profile but that does create problems with my final intent so I will just treat each image as if it is a part of a whole project that may require different results.
And as always, I will not use a CMYK workspace unless I need it.
I can always SAVE the settings in my color workspace and use those in my Creative Suite Workflow options.
Thanks again. I understand where you are coming from.
keep your whatever working RGB — CS3 and CS4 Save For Web default settings will automatically 1) Convert to sRGB, 2) strip the profile, and 3) adjust resolution to 72 pixels per inch
g ballard, that is basically what my action will do when I write it, but it will do other things to the image first. Then it will Save for Web then do a few other things and save once more. Best I can do…
The only time you use "assign" (a profile) is when you have an untagged file generated by a moron, so you need to make educated guesses as to which color space said moron was working on.
Not necessarily even then, Ann. (Well, in my opinion; but my standards may be more demanding than those of folks working for the web exclusively.)
If any meaningful color correction or image editing is needed in Photoshop before saving the image for the web, a 16-bit wide gamut working color space will be less destructive to color editing, as GB says.
Of course, if the attitude is that of anything looks like crap to most web viewers anyway, so who cares?, then all of what has been said in this thread does not matter.
actually I care about all of this and have to go by what I have experienced on both the pc and mac side. Like GB points out, on the pc side, life is easier as the assumption that sRGB values should be used and not other color spaces. I think the mac desktop uses monitor color for example. So one could have one image that looks different on a mac’s desktop as wallpaper, and that image will look different depending on the browser, and different when viewed on a pc. And this may be a single file with sRGB profile.
Switching to the mac had benefits for sure, but there are learning curves as well.
For now, the best thing I see to do is to output from ACR in 16 bit sRGb. Eventually the 16 bit will need to go to 8 bit – after curves and level changes. I looked at the Save for Web settings in CS4 and how one can preview in a mock situation, like a PC no color management, mac no color management, or monitor color. I do wish on the Save for Web and Devices for the Mac no color management for the Preview, that it would allow us to set whether that is for a 1.8 or 2.2 gamma. As it stands, it looks like 1.8 and from what I gather, most mac users are no longer using 1.8 gamma and in fact Mac is going to 2.2 or has already with most things. So why is the preview here 1.8? Kinda useless, not going to print here.
The thing I feel though is if one starts at ProPhoto or Adobe 16bit RGB you will end up not knowing truly what the end results will look like when you convert the profile to either save for web or convert to sRGB. If you start off heading towards sRGB either as outputting to sRGB or maybe Adobe RGB, against what most recommend, then you at least are editing towards the final results. I just don’t like seeing what is going on when using a higher gamut then converting down. I will stay with Adobe RGB to sRGB but can’t see going to ProPhoto and watching how much the image changes when you go through the process. Yes, I am using ACE and relative.
Well, in reading that, I may still stay with outputting from ACR sRGB 16 bit as that looks to me the better route and keeps me in a comfort level. I most likely will go buy a pc laptop just to see what the images look like at the very end. I thought I was done with PC for now but as most are on PCs, then will have to purchase one to see what they really see. That or trust the Save for Web/Devices preview showing PC No Color Management. Hum… not too trusting.
Until I get my 23" Apple Cinema Display back from Apple, it is hard to say what I will finally do as I am only looking at a Macbook Pro screen and that just does not cut it. What it is, 9 bit? I can’t say I could share any test results accurately with this screen.
But I am listening to what is written here and following along and keeping an open mind.
how one can preview in a mock situation, like a PC no color management,
mac no color management, or monitor color
Ps> View> Proof Setup: Monitor RGB (based on monitor profile, Mac RGB (based on Apple RGB 1.8 ), Windows RGB (based on sRGB 2.2)
If you choose WinRGB, for example, it should stick there and Command+Y will "Soft Proof" how it will display on PCs at any time.
I dare say you won’t see any difference on screen Converting from 16-bit ProPhoto RGB to 8-bit sRGB. I’ve read the rocket scientists here comment about that, but it always went over my head.
16-bit sRGB is perfectly acceptable, but I usually recommend sRGB to people who don’t know what they are doing, it reads like you know what you’re doing so why not move to the wider-gamut spaces, at least in your Master production files?
Lastly, I’m on a Mac at 2.2. I think a lot more Macs are running canned 1.8 monitor profiles than you think…
OK, so I am absolutely miserable tonight and regret buying a mac and spending ten thousand dollars or more on something that makes absolutely no sense…
Take an image I have, a bear in tall grass that I took this summer. The image was taken from a RAW and edits made in ACR and saved as a DNG. Then I made a few more edits to the DNG and set my output at that time for sRGB 16bit with a crop size of 1920×1200. I used my workflow process which creates 5-9 layers and so when I was finished, I saved the PSD file with layers and then have an action to flatten, convert to sRGB (in case I accidently come in with an AdobeRGB profile attached), and at one point in the process I had gone to 8bit instead of 16bit. My Creative Suite settings by the way were probably North American General Purpose 2 or whatever.
When I look at the image in Firefox or set the image to my desktop as wallpaper, the image changes. The greens go brownish green. I get the same look if I then try to save for web and select Monitor color for my preview. But if I look at the image on a pc or anywhere else, like back in Photoshop or in Preview all is well. I do have the profile embedded.
What colorspace does the desktop or Firefox 3.0.4 use? I don’t get it. If I save the image as sRGB and it looks like sRGB with my good greens elsewhere, then what is it with this mac that makes it look like crap?
I have calibrated my macbook pro with an Optix Monaco XR using ColorEyes.
In Xee, using some standard test images from the web, take the Smug Calibration image, the image looks the same in Bridge or Xee.
Take my image. The image looks fine in Bridge and horrible and color shifted in Xee.
Now obviously I have done something wrong. I think I even asked about this before because I have some images that seem to work in Bridge, Xee, my Mac desktop, and Firefox/Safari, but not many so I have to throw all this away and start over again.
But what colorspace is Xee or the desktop using and what am I doing wrong?
I know people here are trying to help, but honestly I just don’t get it. On a PC, no matter what colorspace you start… when you convert to an sRGB space, the image looks just fine on or in any program. Why can’t this work with a mac? [sitting here shaking head and feeling sick from all this]. Even when I was meeting with Adobe engineers, and asking them color management questions, they skirted certain issues with mac.
By the way, the image looks fine in Safari, but this is a sRGB image. Again, I don’t get it. Why would Firefox or the desktop not see an sRGB image, embedded tag or not, the same way? PCs just do not do this. Going to bed. Maybe when I get up someone has explained the mac approach. I did enable Firefox to color manage and that now makes the greens look fine in Firefox. But what is going on then?
Again, in PC land, sRGB isn’t really a color management, its the bottom of the rung last resort color profile that a PC uses. Everything is basically sRGB that is not tagged. If I try to strip the embedded profile out of the image, it still looks the same in each situation. Firefox now looks ok but I enabled color management. Desktop still looks crappy. Preview still ok. Bridge still ok. But I guess anything else not color managed, what then is it showing us? Not sRGB. Is there another choice I do not know?
The new book out, Photoshop CS4 Visual Quickstart Guide clearly states when saving for web/devices, do not check embed profile or progressive. Again, do not check mark these. Elaine Weinmann and Peter Lourekas.
Did you enable Color Management in Firefox 3.0.4? It’s not enabled by default, you have to go into the guts of the program (about:config) to enable it manually. The earliest versions of Firefox did not have color management. This capability was added recently, I don’t remember at which stage. Firefox 3.0.4 is the current non-beta release.
What colorspace does the desktop or Firefox 3.0.4 use?
With color management enabled, Firefox will use the color profile embedded in the file, and if the file is not tagged (does not have a profile embedded), Firefox will assume sRGB.
On the other hand, the Mac Desktop (i.e. the Finder), like all Apple applications (from the Finder through iPhoto and Preview to Safari) will throw Monitor RGB at any untagged image file instead of assuming sRGB like Photoshop and Firefox 3.0.4 do.
The greens go brownish green. I get the same look if I then try to save for web and select Monitor color for my preview.
Why the heck are you doing that, man? ??? Use Document profile, geeze!
What are your Conversion Options in Edit > Color Settings > Conversion Options > ?
My Creative Suite settings by the way were probably North American General Purpose 2 or whatever.
Well, that’s too vague, obviously. Besides, I don’t care about your Creative Suite color settings, IO want to know what your Color Settings are in Photoshop CS4. (If you are running an older version, specify.)
I don’t have the faintest idea what Xee is (other than a Chinese cook I happen to know). I’ll go google it.
Why don’t you post your image?
Color management works flawlessly on my Mac with dual calibrated and profiled CRT monitors.
How did you calibrate the screen? Did you select 2.2 gamma? What was the target white point in the calibration software?
By the way, is "Photoshop CS4 Visual Quickstart Guide" one of the series with a rabbit running on two legs, a paperback with red and white on the cover? I’ve found that series to be worthless. This based on Illustrator and MS Word guides of that seeries I’ve read.
1. I’ve found Xee and have no plans to download it. It’s totally redundant.
2. Reading your last three posts, it sounds like you are messing up your files with your Monitor profile; but since you posted that nonsense about assigning in your post #16, all bets are off.
Ok Ramon, just got done with sleep and can start explaining. First off, I said I did get Firefox to be color managed exactly like you just explained to Nini. Only I did not edit the other gfx line to the exact name of my monitor.
Second of all, I pointed out in a non-color managed program, my problem was a color shift. I explained how I created the file. I gave an example of where I saw the colors shift. I do not think Firefox will assume sRGB and that was my point. It looked exactly like the desktop which is Monitor RGB. The answer to WHY THE HECK ARE YOU DOING THAT, MAN was only to explain this. What I was seeing. Not what I was wanting. I have to explain where I see the shift even if I am not going to use it. However, in this case… people will use Firefox without color management so they too will see the shift. So when I say in PS, under the section Save for the Web/Devices and under the PREVIEW section, if you select either the mac or win no color management, all looks fine. If you select monitor color then both that selection AND the results in Firefox (not color managed) look the exact same, colors shift.
Ok – so you do not care about my settings for the Creative Suite color but wanted to know my Color Settings in Photoshop CS4. My settings are for AdobeRGB with all the warnings checked.
It does not matter whether you want to bother with Xee or not, others obviously use it and because it is a non-color managed program then I want to know about it. Another peculiar program is Plainview and it too is used but not color managed.
As for my calibration, I used Monaco Optic XR pro with coloreyes using 2.2gama with a D65 whitepoint. I know that even though the screen on the macbook pro is entirely crappy, it is set to the best it will get. I believe I have my screen set fine.
Now, if you want to hold what I said in #16 against me, then I will just start a new thread and forego this one. I will ask in a new thread what is going on. I am not sure how many are still following along here but I am not an idiot and do know color management and so that is why I am surprised and frustrated that the mac so far is failing at this so miserably. I do not get it. And as for the book, I just bought it yesterday because so many of the CS4 books are not out yet and I was looking for answers.
I do care. I want to fix this problem. I am intelligent and in PC land I can be every bit as good as you are with color management. I regret going to the mac but after spending all this money, can’t go back. And I do like some of the mac side that I hated on the pc side.
Also, my color settings in either Bridge or PS should not matter as long as I am not calibrating using the Adobe Gamma by eye and I am totally blind, or using a setting that is beyond what the programs can handle. Even though North American General Purpose 2 may be vague, it should work. Vague or not.
No, this is something that looks bad and I have yet to figure out why. I am trying to track down a logical explaination.
I do not think Firefox will assume sRGB and that was my point.
It does, No question about it, Your assumption is dead wrong.
I pointed out in a non-color managed program, my problem was a color shift.
In non-color-managed applications, all bets are off. By definition. Duh!
that the mac so far is failing at this so miserably. I do not get it.
The Mac is not failing. You are. PEBKAC.
Also, my color settings in either Bridge or PS should not matte
Oh boy! If you hink your color settings in Photoshop do not matter, then you know zilch about color management, despite what you think.
You may not run into problems in "PC land" for a few reasons: you’re lucky, or you don’t recognize a problem, or you’re just using the lowest common denominator for all your work.
Even though North American General Purpose 2 may be vague, it should work. Vague or not.
It’s NOT North American General Purpose 2, you are being vague about the rest of the color settings. Post a screen shot of the whole Color Settings box, similar to this:
By the way, I cannot show the results in a screenshot. The screenshot capture using Cntrl+Command+3 will be taken in AdobeRGB so even if I try to convert to a sRGB profile, the results are not the same as what I see when the image is sRGB and on the desktop or in a non-color managed setting in Firefox. I went back to Firefox and set it up to not enable color management.
But what is worse is my desktop today all of a sudden looks different than what it looks like in Firefox with the disabled color management. Last night the image on either looked the same, today they are different.
I have always wondered if this macbook pro is screwed up. Today I am feeling moreso that it is the notebook. Maybe I need to go to an Apple store and see what they think though few of them understand and know color management. Crap.
Ramon, the reason I did not think Firefox was assuming sRGB is because the only thing I have seen of Firefox is on my mac was showing the desktop image (Monitor RGB) being the exact same as Firefox(no color management enabled).
Now, you can say I do not know zilch but I can only go by what I see. So while you have a working system, I have a problem here.
As soon as I update Cyberduck will get the screen shot you requested.
But the info looks exactly like your shot except I am using sRGB IEC1966-2.1 as that is my choice given for sRGB. Everything else was the same as on your screen shot. I usually have this set to AdobeRGB but am trying to get everything set for now to just a sRGB setting to see what is going on here.
A screen shot of your color settings dialog box is what I’m asking for. The color profile of that is immaterial.
I’m also suggesting (separately) that you post a file, not the screen shot of said image. You can use yousendit.com and post the download link here. Or you can email me the file. Your choice.
both the bear photos should be sRGB. When viewed in a color vs non-managed color browser or on the desktop who knows what I am going to see. If you take the image and put on the desktop and do a screenshot and open in PS which will now use AdobeRGB, the image goes to a really saturated colors look. Now why would the colors shift to a really saturated look by taking a screen shot of the desktop?
I mean a really really saturated nuclear type screenshot where the colors are saturated as if you put them on an adjustment layer and went to +100.
I took a screen shot of my wallpaper. That is the top image. I then opened the image (the bottom image) and placed it on the top image. Then I took a screenshot of this and converted to sRGB to post on web. Every time I take a screenshot, it ups the color saturation. Something is not right here.
Something here on my end is not right. Hum… This is the kind of problems and shifting I am getting, though some shifting is actually a color shift.
….which also was altered by saturation when I took the screen shot (AdobeRGB) so the desktop should really look less saturated. But the whole thing is acting up.
Ramon, please tell me what the bear shot looks like in a non-color managed program. Does it change? What you tried it in was all color managed. But so many users out there do not use color managed browsers. This is new. Not accepted and widely used as of yet.
But that won’t explain my next post. Why is my system acting this way and do you know how hard it is to make sense of this when things go nuclear on you all the time. No consistency or anything here.
I scored 92 on the last color management test I took for some company. I know color. I have been in Alaska the last two years in the middle of nowhere for 6 months at a time. I tend to forget what I knew. But I did not completely turn into an idiot who does not know zilch.
Hum… what are you finding Ramon and what do you think when you see my continued posted screenshots?
cyberduck is what I use to FTp to my server to post images. I didn’t know what FTP program to use so just started using Cyberduck. I hardly ftp like I did when I was doing web design but then again, those days were in my PC days and I had all the programs I needed. I was a network admin and have been a consultant as well for 7 of the Fortune 500 and 6 of the top ten business in San Antonio, Texas.
I have made a good living with web design and small print projects. Then I moved to a mac, and at the same time took off to Alaska to go down the coastline over a 6 month time period by small boat and kayak.
I have done this now the last two years, the first by kayak only and then this summer I upgraded to a small 27 foot single screw diesel boat. Single screw by the way means one engine and one prop, that’s all.
Anyway, I use the Macbook Pro along with an Apple Cinema Display. I have over 4000 images from this summer alone to edit and will re-do the 3500 from last summer. I need to know this system of mine works before I yet again start editing and saving.
So I keep trying to figure out why it is breaking down and where.
Why would one be able to see one thing on a desktop, take a screen shot and open in PS and see something completely different?
I didn’t read all that, but if I may make one last suggestion as a general rule: Tag everything except what you put on the web
it is true we can’t make our Mac OS and its unmanaged apps "Assume" sRGB, but (unless we are running a high-gamut screen) we can make the Mac Assume something pretty close (if we calibrate/profile to 2.2 6500)…
Did you take a look at the other screen shots and see just what I am dealing with? Some days the laptop seems fine when connected with the ACD and all is well. I use this system on my boat and kayak so needed the smallness of the laptop over a desktop tower.
AND, APPLE swore that the macbook pro was perfect for uses like mine, a photographer. THEY LIED!
But now that we know that, how do I corral this system to working functionally?
Nothing funny about that, R. I validate my calibration on a daily basis, with one the hardware pucks. I perform routine maintenance on my machine scrupulously. I have two excellent CRT monitors that still have luminosity power to spare, lots of it.
I never use an untagged file, ever, for no purpose whatsoever, that’s just me. I keep absolutely nothing on my desktop, not even temporarily. Nothing, just a neutral gray desktop, not showing any volumes, and with the Dock hidden.
I advocate beating morons who hand you untagged files with a baseball bat and warn people who send me files to that effect. As a result, I haven’t come across an untagged file in ages.
I run my Cron Scripts on a daily basis, Repair Permissions before and after every software installation, regularly run Disk Warrior and Repair Disk.
It’s no coincidence.
My suspicion remains that your monitor profile is hosed. :/
Why would Firefox or the desktop not see an sRGB image, embedded tag or not, the same way?
I told you that already: Firefox correctly assumes an untagged image is sRGB, the Finder throws your bad monitor profile at an untagged file instead of sRGB.
As a troubleshooting measure, try setting your monitor profile to Generic Monitor, and go through your steps again.
As another troubleshooting step, create a new Mac account and log in as a different user. Does the problem persist or go away?
Let’s see. My 23"Apple Cinema Display is in the shop due to some bad pixels and while it was barely still under warranty, I sent it in.
The macbook pro is about out of warranty or now out of warranty. If it is the screen, then not only is it hosed, so am I.
I have taken this in before and the techs will swear all is well but they do not even know what a LUT is nor how to calibrate color nor the difference in the software like Spyder or Coloreyes and none of them have even tried Huey though they sell that product.
I don’t know where to turn or what to do.
I do know that I have never, on any system from all the PCs I administered to the macs I have worked on, NEVER have I taken a screen shot of a user’s screen, opened up PS and did the ol’ new imaged edit paste … and seen something completely different! NEVER!
Created new user, went to desktop and took image, went to PS and created new doc and pasted image. It was not the same. I have even gone back to the original display settings, that of Color LCD. I did calibrate Color LCD profile, but that only means setting it up for gamma 2.2 and white point of D65. That is all you do in calibrate.
So, it seems though I have gone to Apple over this for a year now, and they send me away with no changes, it is not right. Something is wrong.
As a pc user I’ve been watching this thread, and there’s no doubt that you’ve got your concepts crossed about color management. I went back a little, and here are a few samples:
Converting the profile won’t work. You have to assign the profile. You stated you are using Adobe RGB. Adobe RGB has a larger gamut. That we know. sRGB has a smaller gamut. If you convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB or ‘save for web’ which will do the same, the colors will de-saturate
Converting will take the color out of the image
What I meant by converting will ‘take the color out of the image’ was that it was converting the image to a smaller gamut. Which is taking the color out, or giving that appearance.
All of this is completely, utterly wrong. As Ramón has so patiently tried to explain:
Converting will change the actual RGB numbers to retain the appearance. The appearance will not change when you convert to another profile. You may get gamut clipping, or saturation clipping, when going to a smaller gamut space, but that’s a completely different matter.
Assigning a profile on the other hand, will not change the RGB numbers. But the meaning of those numbers change; so the appearance changes.
A tip: Have the histogram open in all channels view when converting or assigning. Note when the histogram changes and when it doesn’t.
I don’t know if the monitor profile is hosed or not. But recalibrating won’t hurt. And I’m pretty sure your Macbook Pro is fine.
One more thing:
Again, in PC land, sRGB isn’t really a color management, its the bottom of the rung last resort color profile that a PC uses. Everything is basically sRGB that is not tagged
This is also completely wrong. It depends on the monitor. With a wide-gamut monitor, untagged images come out over-saturated.
Stunning shots! Get this stuff together. Your images deserve it.
First off, thanks for joining in Freeagent. Is that from the PC program I once used on a daily basis that your nic refers to? The newsgroup reader?
Anyway, no on the wildshot. I don’t have my 23" ACD and just did a format on the notebook and so no crossover on the profile. I think I know how to create a situation where this can or most likely will happen, believe it or not, but will test and discuss with Adobe when I go back up to Seattle.
Now, unless things have changed, I will still state that sRGB has been the default for all PC programs that do not color manage or if a profile is not embedded. This was always considered the bottom of the ladder profile. I did not use pc’s I guess when the wide gamut came out or when this changed and maybe had moved on to the mac or was not effected by this change. I do not know, I guess, what programs do now if they are not defaulting to sRGB but I do know that when working with and designing 40-50 plus websites and when I created print ads for local shops under sometimes RGB or other times CMYK, that I could match any color I needed.
Sorry if I say things like moving to a smaller gamut ‘takes the color out’ instead of going through the whole speach of how the process works depending on the settings of Absolute, Relative, Perceptual, or Saturation. So yes, to me – going from ProPhoto to sRGB and wanting to throw out a quick statement of ‘taking the color out’ meant converting using one of the settings from one gamut with one set of rules to another gamut of less space. I just didn’t write all that but I knew what I meant. Where I screwed up was first off responding with the wrong advice because I was tired and didn’t think clearly before posting. My bad.
But after, I didn’t waste time showing just how much I know color management and continued to use quick statements not knowing we would then focus on that and not the problem at hand. Guys, love the help as I am new to the mac hardware but on the PC side, I worked in conjunction with a company testing and developing AMD chipsets, was a Network admin for many many Fortune 500 companies or top San Antonio companies, developed systems to be marketed for generic PC sales by building the hardware and ordering the components to build out systems. I have rolled over more PCs than I care to think of. But I guess I should not just throw out statements in a rush to move the conversation along. Guess my bad again.
Also, Ramon – I stated the fact of what I did to go back to Color LCD which is the only supported generic or not profile for the macbook pro and then used the Calibrate button to set it from gamma 1.8 to 2.2 and use whitepoint of D65. Though I have not used OptiCAL I have used Monaco Optix Pros hardware along with multiple software packages including the latest of ColorEyes. I have also used Spyders, hueys, and other hardware and am well aware of how to create profiles, and on the PC could even go as far as tweaking profiles for special projects. But I was only pointing out that on the Macbook that I went back to Color LCD as the choice and did the stupid little Calibrate button to ensure that I was 2.2 d65. OK, that is not so stupid but hopefully now you understand. I was suprised you brought up OptiCAL at that point when I only wanted to address what is the only working supported profile for the standard macbook pro in the list. Yes, I can profile and have. Several times a day if need be. But if you check a box in the Display Profile it won’t show anything but COLOR LCD. I promise. I don’t have my laptop here but I promise that is the way it is.
But with all that said and once again stating I do know profiles and color management, it is hard to know – when new to the mac platform – what is going on when things have been screwed up since I purchased this notebook, the news coming out that this isn’t 16 bit but at best 9 bit screen and Apple gets sued over it while I was up in Alaska where I go to remote areas for 6 months each year where there is barely a time to even get internet access (once a month if lucky), and reporting results that I am sure are hard to believe and even more frustrating that unless I take a video of the screen with my Sony FX1 HD I cannot share just how bizaare this whole thing is on my end.
I agree with G Ballard that you can put sRGB images on the web with no embedded profile and at least on the PC side, chances are that won’t get you into any trouble, except as of now what has been pointed out that wide gamut monitors will puke on this. But what I have always known was it was a choice. Include or not. Then I read half the books in my library state not to embed and half state to go ahead and embed. Hum. Half go one way while the others go the other.
So I was not out to debate the merits of either way. I was up to report that from all my experience on any PC ever in my whole entire 24 year career working on PCs that never NEVER have I had a desktop screenshot not look the same when creating a new doc and pasting within Photoshop. EVER. And I started off years ago as a tech at Compucare in Seattle repairing twenty computers a week that our customers brought in with all kinds of ailments.
So with that, I could not understand why on my first mac that I have owned since I left mac in 1989 why this is happening. Or why the desktop image will look one way for a week or so then color shift back to correct for a few days. Or why it isn’t more of a gamma shift but a true color shift from non-managed vs color managed apps. What was really hard to grasp was when or why things were doing this when there was no logic to it, so my apoligies if what I was stating made me appear to be A COMPLETE IDIOT WHO KNOWS NOTHING…. LOL… but I do.
How can one explain that opening a sRGB image in PS and then changing the workspace to AdobeRGB1998 would make the image go to some nuclear saturation? How do you explain that?
I do know every tab and selection in every option in PS, Bridge, or other apps. ( I know it looked bad for awhile there with the one post I should not have posted about assign color when I knew better but spoke out of turn)
Anyway, I will try to slow down and type more specifically using the terms correctly. I won’t rush so much just to throw out a general statement if it is going to become a side topic of debate or I am going to constantly be accused of not knowing anything. But for now I have no ACD nor notebook and won’t for 4-6 days. I am using my roommate’s laptop PC to get this out. I just wish you could see from my end how bad things have been and seen how you would have described this to others when you can’t even take a screenshot to really show the subtle changes and color shift or even the major ones. It is hard to describe when you can’t take a photo or image, one worth a thousand words…
By the way Freeagent, for now on my machine, if you convert from say Adobe RGB to sRGB, you would not believe the changes the images makes and color shifts and so yes… it really does take the color out.
Now, without my ACD to view, it has always done this on my notebook screen. Always. To some degree. I do not try to use or even look at my notebook screen except to park my palattes.
At this point I’m leaving this thread, most likely for good.
You are not only having color troubles, but you have personal issues that are outside the scope of this forum to address. You are manifestly more interested in asserting what you perceive as your expertise than in gaining a meaningful insight into color theory and color management, more interested in arguing that solving a problem.
Despite your protestations and your detailing of your alleged experience, with every single new post you continue to demonstrate that you really don’t have a clue. This last post of yours is no exception.
Sorry, I have nothing else to offer you. I know better than to continue to argue with such a personality. I just hope that future readers of this thread, months from now, don’t get confused by all the nonsense you leave here for posterity. This is the only reason and purpose of this honest, brutally frank post. It’s nothing personal, just attempting to prevent beginners from getting confused by your posts.
By the way Freeagent, for now on my machine, if you convert from say Adobe RGB to sRGB, you would not believe the changes the images makes and color shifts and so yes… it really does take the color out.
The low end MacBook pro probably can’t be accurately calibrated. Preview and Safari use ColorSync. FireFox 3.04 on the Mac has to be using ColorSync and on the Win, ICM. Your images don’t look all that saturated. The only accurate color management is Photoshop. ColorSync is very subtly weird. There’s something wrong with its gamma correction at 3/4 tone and below. Gamma correction does not actually do the inverse of the power law at the low end or high end.
I will still state that sRGB has been the default for all PC programs that do not color manage or if a profile is not embedded
For all practical purposes it has appeared that way, because sRGB was intentionally specified to mimic the native response of a traditional CRT monitor. But in reality, a non-color-managed application simply ignores whatever profile is there, sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto, whatever.
On a traditional monitor, <no profile> looks similar to sRGB. But they’re not the same. It’s not "defaulting to" sRGB. That distinction is important to grasp, because with the coming of wide-gamut monitors all those bets are off.
As for the rest, I’m with Ramón on this one. What you’re saying simply makes no sense. I’m sure your problem is easily fixed, but that requires all of us to be on the same page regarding basic color management, and we’re not.
I too suggest recalibrating first of all. I’ll go through your posts again to see if I can find a clue. But I really think you should take a time-out here and go through the basics again.
I think sRGB was intended to mimic the response of a typical TV set, in the diabolical minds of the Microsoft cabal who generated it, because their plan was to have Microsoft powered computers in every living room. Endless confusion ensued.
sRGB uses the ITU-R BT.709-5 primaries, the same as are used in studio monitors and HDTV,[1] and a transfer function (gamma curve) typical of CRTs. This specification allows sRGB to be directly displayed on typical monitors, a factor which greatly aided its acceptance.
…one can generally assume, in the absence of embedded profiles or any other information, that any 8-bit-per-channel image file or any 8-bit-per-channel image API or device interface can be treated as being in the sRGB color space. When an RGB color space with a larger gamut is needed, color management usually must be employed to map image data to appear correctly on the display.
Ramon sorry you got frustrated or found that I would not get frustrated being constantly accused of what I do or do not know. I felt you may not have experience with a macbook pro and may not know what display calibration I was referring to, so I was trying to explain it all. As for my other comments, I am trying to stay on the problem without feeling like I have to defend myself of which I have felt the need.
Anyway, thanks for your input, looking at the images and downloading them and the time you took. I do appreciate.
G Ballard, I may have made a statement about ASSIGN but didn’t use it on any of the images I have shared or used here for examples. I have used CONVERT and so while I spoke about ASSIGN, wasn’t the right time to do so and haven’t really used it. I did say I could see how one may use it when it wasn’t appropriate as a choice. But it is interesting to note the difference of what mac does vs pc. That is what I am looking for and trying to learn.
Lundberg02 – thank you for your input. I understand that what you see does not look all that saturated, but on my end, on my screen it does. What it actually does it make the grass go from the kinda brown tone green to a lime bright green. Then when you take a screen shot of the image and open that in PS, it adds again another boost to the color. Take a screen shot and do this again and finally the image is just all color that is not near anything real.
But again, while I do understand ICM for PC and all, I am new to Mac and Colorsync and guess this is where I am struggling especially when I am not sure if what I am seeing is what I am suppose to see.
If I have Bridge set up with North Am Pre Press 2 so I can see things in Adobe RGB and not always in sRGB, and I have my color settings using Adobe RGB in PS, then if I bring in a sRGB tagged image, the image should not be boosted to some high saturated colors when I can see that same image on another PC and it looks fine. Now, I am sorry again if I cannot show just what I mean by the highly saturated image and color boost but on my machine, I would not expect any change when viewing a sRGB image under an AdobeRGB colorspace. If that is not true for the mac, then yes… I do not understand the mac. If you can view a sRGB image on a mac without seeing a change when using an Adober RGB color space, like I expect to see on a PC, then there is something wrong with my macbook pro.
It is ashame Lund that you point out there will always be some small problems with this system no matter if the notebook is working proper or not. Or at least a problem with Colorsync.
And G Ballard, again… I am not assigning anything. I wish I never wrote that. I can’t seem to now get away from it. If I had not spent so much money on this system and software and all the stuff I purchased then I would go back to PC and Vista though I hate the thought. But I can’t afford to so I am trying to learn. I do not understand Colorsync on a mac. So I compare what has worked on a PC for me for years. I tell my experience to illustrate that on the PC I had no problems. I am having all the problems now, on a mac.
Sorry if I am human and come to my own defense to illustrate this at the same time.
My perception is that I set my Camera to AdobeRGB1998 though I mainly use RAW so it only helps if I use the jpg which I rarely do.
I feel in PS I should be able to choose North Am PrePress 2 so I can use AdobeRGB AND have warnings turned on. I mimic these settings in Bridge to ensure that all my workspaces are in sync. I do not really care about CMYK but set that and RGB both to Preserve Embedded Profile. If necessary and if I ever go to print, I will address the setting for CMYK later.
I check mark all three warnings for Profile Mismatches. Again, I do not PRINT but do like to work in Adobe RGB. I really do not assign but actually convert to sRGB. I look at my actions and that is exactly what is going on. I am just now getting to the point where I may Save for Web and Devices but thus far on all my JPGs have converted to sRGB at 11 for quality. I figure if I save for web I can change the quality then.
I use Relative Colormetric. Not any of the others. I do simulate winRGB for soft proofing now that I have been shown how.
These are basically the settings I uploaded to show Ramon when he was helping.
Now, this looks horrible saturated on the two images on a PC right now. I explained earlier how I created the screenshot and which bear image came from where.
With these settings, I would expect I could take a sRGB image and bring that image into PS and not see the image change while looking normal on my desktop. But it does.
Again, this is with the RGB colorspace set to AdobeRGB1998 in PS.
The one screenshot of my desktop is the best I could post to show what I was seeing. All three bear faces are different. And I can see the same on the PC laptop I am on. It shows pretty much what I saw on my laptop.
I did not assign anything. I converted from a AdobeRGB1998 8bit PSD file to the 8bit sRGB JPG I posted to the web. I did use an action that ran about 6 steps with this being the last step.
Hope that helps and again, sorry Ramon but while I do appreciate your help, you get on me for things I am saying when you as well aren’t understanding and so I can see that we aren’t working on this well at times and can see you got frustrated. How can I explain that on the Macbook Pro for example, under Display Properties, there is a box with COLOR LCD then a line and then maybe other profiles unless the system checkmarks a box that won’t show any other profile but the one you are using if not the default COLOR LCD. And when I changed that profile from SA_Nights which I created with a Monaco Optix XR Pro and ColorEyes and went back to the default COLOR LCD, I also tried to explain there is a small button that allows for one to ‘calibrate’ which is the area to set gamma and white point. I was not referring at that time to my hardware puck/software (ColorEyes) or anything but what came with the machine. So sorry if I got frustrated that you kept getting on me for something that was what it was, the way the machine works. Anyway… again… thanks for your time.
Freeagent, I did re-calibrate and even threw away the one profile at question. I tried all before I took the machine back to the Apple Store today. I posted my settings and Ramon said they all looked fine. He felt at one point it was a monitor problem. I think it is hardware. Time will tell. I will stay off the thread if you think best.
I think part of the problem here is that you’re not explaining things very precisely. Try to pinpoint the exact problem and don’t use so many words… 🙂
So let’s zoom in and grab some specifics:
if you convert from say Adobe RGB to sRGB, you would not believe the changes the images makes and color shifts and so yes
Now this should NOT happen. This is wrong. This should happen when you ASSIGN, not convert. But what changes? Does the saturation increase or decrease here, or is it a "flat" color shift? Gamma change? Something else? Be precise.
Concentrate on this. Forget all the rest for now. Why does it happen? What happens with the histogram when you do this conversion? Go through all your color settings in detail again. Make sure the monitor profile is right.
Other than that, we’re getting into Mac specifics here, of which I know nothing.
gballard,
I think perhaps you should recheck the assumption that Windows defaults to sRGB. I don’t have a wide-gamut monitor myself yet, but there are many reports in the Win forum of people seeing the saturation boost on untagged images – similar to what happens on Macs. And it doesn’t really make any sense, not to me at least. Not being color managed, all Windows can do is send it through the monitor profile. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Photoshop, of course, will assume sRGB because it has to assume something.
It’s not "defaulting to" sRGB. That distinction is important to grasp,
because with the coming of wide-gamut monitors all those bets are off….I think perhaps you should recheck the assumption that Windows defaults to sRGB.
On my Windows Vista box — running Explorer, for example — I saw the wide gamut saturation problem disappear and display correctly when I had a wide-gamut Dell monitor hooked up.
Further, in windows Safari, I see Page Color match tagged sRGB and untagged sRGB (my earlier challenge to show me a Mac browser that can do this).
This is where I have drawn my conclusion that — for practical purposes — Windows Vista defaults/assigns/assumes/applies sRGB to untagged color (and tagged color in unmanaged applications).
Photoshop, of course, will assume sRGB because it has to assume something.
Photoshop ‘assumes’ its Working RGB space if told to ignore a profile or a missing profile warning.
It is pretty clear this thread took off because of posters using wrong terminology and drawing bad conclusions…
Your best bear with a sRGB profile. looks the same in Photoshop, Safari, Text edit, Camino, Flock. After converting in Photoshop from SRGB to aRGB everything looks identical.
You have some serious problems with your computer what I don’t have a clue.
Amazing amount of angst & didacticism here. And so few practical solutions. So, I SEEM to have found a very simple solution to the problem on my own. To recap: I am a retoucher/photographer. The accepted profile for the industry is Abobe RGB 1998. This works as our ultimate purpose is to produce prints (either inkjet or in magazines). Typically if we need to use sRGB, that will involve a conversion -which would be ok if it "solved" the web display problem but it doesn’t.
Problem "solved": It appears that Safari & Firefox use the monitor profile (thanks to the poster(s) who highlighted this fact). In CS3 (or CS4) I typically use Adobe RGB 1998 for preview. If I’m working on print ads for magazines, I will preview w/US Web Coated (SWOP) v2.
I realized that if Safari uses Monitor profile, then I need to PREVIEW using the same profile. When I do that, my image in PShop EXACTLY matches the same image displayed in Safari/Firefox.
It has been suggested that "embedding" the profile will force the Browser to display as I intended. But on my Mac (Safari/Firefox) that does not happen. It seems that the browser only uses the Monitor profile. It would be helpful if a universal web profile could be adopted in the browser (just as it has for a large of the photo & print publishing industry) And for all I know sRGB is that. Yet if Safari/Firefox only use my monitor profile, that will be the only the first complication I encounter.
Other details: I’m using a Mac w/Apple Cinema display. I never use PC’s -nor does most of my target audience.
I would like to be able to "force" the browsers to display the images as I preview them. But at least I now can predict what they will look like when viewed online -and make adjustments (if those images are for display only -not download) Obviously if the images have been posted for clients to download for other uses, they need to understand that the images will look different in a browser than they will in print or when viewed in an image editing app.
Thanks to those who replied in earnest. But may I suggest that a more congenial & supportive tone would make these discussions more appealing and useful.
It appears that Safari & Firefox use the monitor profile (thanks to the poster(s) who highlighted this fact).
Safari does, not Firefox.
It has been suggested that "embedding" the profile will force the Browser to display as I intended. But on my Mac (Safari/Firefox) that does not happen. It seems that the browser only uses the Monitor profile.
That is not true, unless you have not enabled color management.
Yet if Safari/Firefox only use my monitor profile,
Again, that is patently false.
But at least I now can predict what they will look like when viewed online
You’re deluding yourself. Over 95% of web viewers will be using non-color-managed applications to view your images on uncalibrated monitors. You have no idea what your images will look like to them, no matter what you do.
When you use your own monitor profile to view an image, you are only seeing the image as it looks on your computer. No other computer will display it exactly like that except by coincidence.
The solution has been given and it is very simple: calibrate and profile your monitor accurately, regularly and often, make sure all your files destined for web are in the sRGB color space, preferably with the sRGB profile embedded (so that even the stupid Safari will display them correctly).
Typically if we need to use sRGB, that will involve a conversion -which
would be ok if it "solved" the web display problem but it doesn’t.
At this point that is the best we can do it my opinion it is Apple who has it screwed up…
If you are serving an Apple-based web community (and considered the other issues), CONVERT to sRGB and tag the file.
I base this on the belief most Mac users are using color-managed Safari, and using embedded profiles is the only hope of hitting the sRGB target on wide-gamut and 1.8 Mac monitors.
So Mr Castaneda, are you more interested in showing what a BOUNDLESSLY IGNORANT, rube I am or in being helpful? I thought this was a "support forum". Perhaps I was wrong about that too.
I think I’ll let you & Anne Shelbourne battle it out henceforth.
The confusion and continued discussion of color management makes me wish that there were some convenient color-management flow chart displaying the best path for various options; starting with an camera image capture, created or supplied image, and following through to a known output, including Web, local inkjet printer, offsite digital printer, and offset lithography (web and sheetfed/coated and uncoated); all with proper/best choice settings or policies indicated along the way.
The confusion and continued discussion of color management makes me wish that there were some convenient color-management flow chart displaying the best path for various options; starting with a digital camera image capture, or scanned, created or supplied image, and following through to a known output, including Web, local inkjet printer, offsite digital printer, and offset lithography (web and sheetfed/coated and uncoated); all with proper/best choice settings or policies indicated along the way.
Obviously, it’s you who seems more interested in being argumentative, judgmental and critical than in learning about color management.
My comments are necessary so that future readers of this thread will not be misled by random ignorant pronouncements. It’s not all about you. The purpose of these forums is for everybody to benefit from all questions and all answers, not just the original poster. Just because you start a thread does not mean you own it or that any other forum contributor may not correct inaccuracies that have the potential of costing a beginner time and money.
Don’t flatter yourself. I have no interest in highlighting anybody’s shortcomings, usually folks do a pretty good job of that all by themselves.
One never ceases to be amazed at the number of people purporting to work in the industry who resist the need to brush up on color management.
you never know what few simple words will move someone forward in this area and that is that challenge to find those words and present them effectively
Monitor Space <conversion> Source Space <conversion> Target Space (print/web/device)
everything after that is for people like Jeff Schewe who actually know what they are talking about to explain the details 🙂
I think I’ll let you & Anne Shelbourne battle it out henceforth.
I had missed that remark in your post.
The only time I recall ever "battling it out" with Ann, whom I consider a dear friend, it was over the subject of traditional English cooking and the British monarchy, and that was many years ago.
I tried that with my No Color Adjustment writing (which is embarrassing for me to look at these days)…
I think the ‘long’ versions tend to overwhelm the typical reader who is just trying to understand why his color is off.
The answer to the problem is very simple in theory to both troubleshoot and confirm, but it is impossible for most people to grasp until they have the simple concept understood:
ya, that’s my point, Ramón, they WILL need to FIRST understand all three terms
once they get this formula, most of the smoke and mirrors set up by professional color management writers will evaporate and they will be better able to grasp the information
Thank you for testing in PS, Safari, Text Edit, Camino, and Flock. That image does not look the same in all for me. I think there are serious problems with the computer.
It is not the action and I am not assigning as Ramon still thinks. I was smart enough to test the images without running the action and got the same results.
Of course, I cannot even screen capture and create a new doc in PS and paste and see the screen capture look like my desktop with open apps. For some reason, there is a shift when just pasting the image. This has never happened to me on a PC. I can take and post screenshots all day long in Word or PS without seeing the colors shift and saturate. I couldn’t share what I was seeing with others. Ramon wrote:
Ramón G Castañeda – 10:59am Dec 7, 08 PST (#57 of 104)
When you take a screen shot, the OS embeds your monitor profile in the file, not sRGB, not Adobe RGB. Unless you’ve changed it yourself.
Well, this does not explain why I just paste the image and it no longer looks like my screen. Hum…. I think Buko that there is a hardware issue.
Againk, thank you Buko – nice to know what works elsewhere though not on my system.
G Ballard –
At one point you write:
you MUST embed the sRGB Profile
I beg to disagree on that amplified statement… embedding profiles can cause problems like bloated page sizes, mismatched blending of page-graphic color, embedding profiles also gives a false sense of security for people who don’t understand the target color space, for example if they post Adobe RGB on the web ("because it’s better" theory)…
Later you wrote:
If you are serving an Apple-based web community (and considered the other issues), CONVERT to sRGB and tag the file.
But isn’t that kinda hard to do. One often does not know the hardware of their audience and also, often, they are on a PC.
How often is there just an Apple based community?
Now to anyone interested. I’ve had no problems on the PC and get things to work just fine. On the mac, I either have a bad machine or there is an understanding problem going on here.
I do not have a problem admitting that I may just not understand Macs at all, but if my settings checked out and you looked at my screenshots I uploaded then you can see there is a problem and my settings are fine.
Until I get the machine back from Apple, cannot do much else so will just sit tight.
Now, on a side note and also for Neal-
Neal-
I cannot explain why at times Ramon or Jeff Schewe or others love to either call or imply that someone is an idiot but I have seen this so many times from them that I just try to get use to it and tell myself that while that is bad, the good is they do offer their ideas and share good knowledge. But yes, they are very opinionated.
Boundless ignorance
Duh!
Why the heck are you doing that, man? ??? Use Document profile, geeze! (because though that is not what I would normally do – for now it is the only way to explain what I am seeing on my machine and my screenshots are not coming out properly so I have no other way to describe what I am seeing)
I’ve found that series to be worthless. (so are the other dozen books I have worthless because they too say not to embed a profile for the web?)
Oh boy! If you think your color settings in Photoshop do not matter, then you know zilch about color management, despite what you think. ( I was pointing out the fact that if you’re cautious and understanding about the settings then you can use North American General Purpose 2 and still get good results and should be able to post a sRGB to the web BUT was not saying you can just click anything and set it any way and do the same – don’t take things so literal)
The Mac is not failing. You are. PEBKAC. ( I don’t know what a PEBKAC is nor do I care and for now we do not know if it is me or the machine till it is tested and back from Apple)
Not true. I don’t think you understand what calibrate and profile mean. (if you have ever worked on a macbook pro, at least on mine, and go to Display Settings there is one called COLOR LCD then a line and then you may see the rest of the profiles or they may be hidden due to a check box to hide all unsupported profiles. If you click on COLOR LCD then Apple at least has a button to Calibrate COLOR LCD to 2.2gamma and D65whitepoint. This has nothing to do with creating your own profile using hardware pucks or software or anything else. I said I had a Monaco. Yet you treat me like I know nothing about calibration. No, just reporting what I did by going back to the standard supported Apple profile and how one calibrates that to 2.2 and D65. I understand fully and wanted you to know I went back to the original profile that came with the notebook and still set it for 2.2 and D65)
All of this is completely, utterly wrong. As Ramón has so patiently tried to explain:
Converting will change the actual RGB numbers to retain the appearance. The appearance will not change when you convert to another profile. You may get gamut clipping, or saturation clipping, when going to a smaller gamut space, but that’s a completely different matter. (on my mac right now, the AdobeRGB image will vastly change when converting, not assigning, but converting to sRGB.)
Ramón G Castañeda – 10:04pm Dec 7, 08 PST (#77 of 104)
You are not only having color troubles, but you have personal issues that are outside the scope of this forum to address. You are manifestly more interested in asserting what you perceive as your expertise than in gaining a meaningful insight into color theory and color management, more interested in arguing that solving a problem.
Yes Ramon, though I appreciate your help and the time you take to help me test things, you make me feel I must defend myself and my knowledge. Sorry I am left feelin that way. With the above it is hard not to feel that way. I would rather just learn how things work on the mac and not have to spend an hour or more addressing your put downs.
Neal, as Ramon puts it "My comments are necessary so that future readers of this thread will not be misled by random ignorant pronouncements."
So there you have it. I think sometimes they just quickly scan the post and before they think in the context of the post, they are already trying to solve the problem or post something. I tried not to take the comments personally. I try not to but it is hard. I try to realize how much they are trying to help even if they put people down.
So when Ramon writes to you:
You’re deluding yourself. Or Boundless ignorance
Don’t feel bad, I see this a lot. I hate to see it. But its there. And if it is really so that future readers will understand our total and complete ignorance according to Ramon, then what can we do. We may feel obligated to retort and write what we meant and what he misunderstood or didn’t take the time to really see.
Serously, Ramon I do appreciate your help. I just sometimes question the method. The only reason I ever see someone put someone else down is when someone is trying to make themselves look better or smarter. You are intelligent enough without slamming people all the time. I think you can give sound advice if you just stop alluding to the world being ignorant or idiots.
Anyway-
I did more than rely on my action for converting to sRGB. And though you share your thoughts with Buko that I must be screwed up there as well, I did test single images with manually converting and not assigning the sRGB profile. Sorry. Maybe the mac is really screwed up. Maybe it is my machine. Time will tell. Till then, I cannot say or do anthing more till I can test when I get it back.
I am not picking a fight with Ramon, far from it… as he did try to help and looked at the problem. He just jumps to conclusions a tad quick in my opinion about our knowledge. Ramon often makes me feel l
Well, was going to say Ramon often makes me feel I can learn more, but the message may not have come across very well. Anyways, I will report back when I know something more about my mac and if it is screwed up.
It is very difficult to read your post #108 as you do not differentiate where you are quoting and where you’re not. Place a > before the first line of each paragraph of quoted text to get it to change font and indent.
Your problem is almost certainly in the calibration and profiling of your monitor which is obviously not even close to sRGB.
Until you get that right; and understand that you should work in one of the wider spaces such as Adobe RGB or even ProColor (with your RGB working space set accordingly); and only CONVERT to sRGB when you Save for Web keeping your files "tagged" (which means retaining the embedded Profile) you are never going to get accurate color on either Platform. Neither is a single person (apart from you!) going to see your photographs bearing ANY resemblance to what you see on your monitor.
Seriously, you need to forget and UNlearn everything that that you thought that you knew about Color Management and go back to CM 101 Page One again.
I strongly recommend that you start with Gary Ballard’s website and follow his instructions implicitly without trying to second-guess his reasoning!
But i also think that you either are not using your Monitor Calibration software correctly; or that your Profiling equipment is not much good.
I understand that you are using a laptop but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to connect it up to a better quality Monitor when you are in your office.
When I say the Machine is screwed up that includes everything about the machine including calibrations and software. That and the understanding of color management itself.
Sorry I didn’t read the book lost interest after the first paragraph.
Sorry I didn’t read the book lost interest after the first paragraph.
The length of those posts made it easier for me to skip them altogether. 🙂
There’s absolutely no machine malfunction that could cause a saturation boost like that. Impossible. Even if the screen were totally hosed, it would not impact the image without the infelicitous assigning of a wrong profile. When machines malfunction, the software doesn’t run.
PEBKAC. (For anybody who doesn’t know what PEBKAC stands for, Google will tell you: Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.)
Well, I can promise you I did not assign anything when working with Ramon. I converted using the menu system. But if everyone here wants to keep wasting time saying I must be assigning things, then go ahead though I am not and so it really doesn’t help.
Ann, I have read multiple books on Color Management and again people, I had no problem with a PC. Where I have problems is on a mac that has had a history of color issues. That, and there are things a mac seems to do that a pc does not.
My calibration system is fine. I have two different software apps to use with the hardware. I have profiled PCs with the same hardware as well as other Macs with no issues. I did upgrade the software that came with the Monaco Optix Pro XR with ColorEyes. I do not think it is at fault. I would not be surprised if for some reason though the icc profile on the mac is corrupting. I don’t trust this mac yet and could see that happening. WHY YOU ASK? Because I use an Apple 23" Cinema Display that is also profiled and have seen the OS switch the profiles for the displays. Can I prove this? I do intend to run test on what I was doing to recreate this and already have spoken with people at Adobe in Seattle when I at lunch with them one day and they know what I described and were interested and they as well were not surprised. I think there is a way to make this happen.
Serioulsy Ann, the statement you made "Seriously, you need to forget and UNlearn everything that that you thought that you knew about Color Management and go back to CM 101 Page One again." doesn’t help anything. I have multiple books on CM and have not had problems till I got the mac. If you want to say I am lacking knoweledge on the mac then fine. I won’t argue that I am learning what colorspace the monitor or desktop uses vs how different apps work under managed and non-color managed profiles.
On the PC it was easy, and if you think I really buy the arguement made that on a PC, the default is not really sRGB when even the Wikipedia stated it is, well… though both are just opinions, I believe that PCs tend to lean towards sRGB and if you can prove otherwise I doubt you could tell the difference on screen. PCs are not hard to CM. Macs for now are.
Now, on the mac, if I take a screenshot, and bring it into PS, and I have my three little boxes checked under my color settings for missing or mismatched profiles when opening, missing,or pasting, then accordingly, from my understanding on the mac, a screenshot should be taken with the Monitor profile and when pasting in PS, there should be a pop up box saying there is a mismatch and the working space is AdobeRGB. Accordingly then, I should have two check boxes on what to do when pasting the screenshot into PS when the pop up box comes up. Hum. The other day I did not get the box. Nor a warning though I had those set. See links above to settings and you will see they were checked. <http://kayakingbear.com/settings.jpg>
Truthfully, I do not know in the following cases what colorspace the mac uses when:
using Opera or Safari or Xee – or any non-color managed app. Nor what colorspace in ACR for previews, or Bridge for previews. I do not know yet what Acrobat will use when pasting images or creating documents and importing images but guess there will be a place to set some of those rules.
I do not know yet what Dreamweaver will want from me when setting a workspace, nor InDesign or Illustrator or Flash as I may own these I am not using them yet. But on a mac, I will be unfamiliar with these programs and their colorspaces.
I know on the PC side but on the Mac, I don’t know.
What is the difference on the Mac between Colorsync RGB and MonitorRGB as the PC doesn’t have Colorsync, that is a Mac only. My understanding is that if you choose ColorsyncRGB as a workspace and share a file, then their colorspaceRGB will replace yours when they open the file on their side.
I do know if I am working under PS with an AdobeRGB colorspace and an image is tagged as a sRGB profile, then if I want to move from the sRGB profile to the AdobeRGB, I can then at that point ASSIGN the profile as one choice, or I can CONVERT the profile. If you Assign, you will see the colors saturate or boost as has been discussed here. If you CONVERT, then the profile will change to AdobeRGB but the colors should remain the same and there should not be a shift or increased saturation. The other option is to assign a profile to an image that has no profile as pointed out here.
But what if you are working under a sRGB workspace and you want to convert or assign an image with an AdobeRGB profile, then while you are working on that image, are you working under an AdobeRGB colorspace. No books really discuss that scenerio. I guess this is no different than if you open an AdobeRGB embedded image while your workspace is sRGB, then while you have the image open, what is your workspace? AdobeRGB? (cannot test right now, no machine, in shop)
That is why I told you Ann I do not use the sRGB workspace and why I output sRGB from Bridge when I want and do so at 16bit and convert later to 8bit. That is why I also have an action to ensure I have converted to sRGB in case I change my output in Bridge for something and forget to change back. The action only covers me if I forget after changing. So Ramon, this is why I am saying I am not assigning nor using assign for anything. I have reasons why I do not output ProPhoto from Bridge, or even AdobeRGB unless I feel the image really requires it.
As far as understanding the setting in PS – I get it. Anyone can read just about any book on setting up PS or even Bridge. But when it comes to really discussing the workspace in different scenerios… then no, the books don’t discuss that. Ah, the Photoshop Bible does some but most books don’t. So here is where you have an opportunity to enlighten me.
I output sRGB from Bridge when I want and do so at 16bit and convert later to 8bit.
Utter nonsense, caught fortuitously by me while scrolling down to JM’s post.
Bridge is not an image editor. It doesn’t open files, it doesn’t edit them and it most certainly does not output image files either. It’s just a file browser that hands files out to Photoshop, ACR, or any appropriate application.
if you open an AdobeRGB embedded image while your workspace is sRGB, then while you have the image open, what is your workspace? AdobeRGB?
Yes, for that image. Unless you assign it, or convert it to, a new profile.
RQ:
This may be the point at which your screw-up starts to happen:
You opened an sRGB image in an Adobe RGB space? Did you then re-save that image?
If you did, and you had not previously CONVERTED that image to Adobe RGB, you inadvertently ASSIGNED an Adobe RGB profile to what was really an sRGB image.
Also: if your two monitors display the same image so differently, your calibration and profiling methods are obviously deeply flawed and it is very likely that neither of them are anywhere close to the sRGB color space.
Neither do you appear to understand the difference between the way that Safari and Opera handle sRGB images with EMBEDDED Profiles.
I don’t care how many books that you have read on this subject, you frankly do not begin to comprehend the principles of CM.
You opened an sRGB image in an Adobe RGB space? Did you then re-save that image?
If you did, and you had not previously CONVERTED that image to Adobe RGB, you inadvertently ASSIGNED an Adobe RGB profile to what was really an sRGB image.
This is not correct. Just tried it, it’s still sRGB when saved from an Adobe RGB working space. Tried both straight Save, and Save As.
give me a break, I meant in ACR. Really. Are you that apt to nit pick and pick a fight anywhere you can.
Again Ramon I will say only this about you…
The only reason you put people down is to make yourself look smarter when actually you seem intelligent enough not to have to do that. But I guess I am wrong and give you too much credit or you are that insecure and have to stoop to being exact and literal. I do feel for you.
Yes, technically ACR is a plugin for PS. But I can access it from Bridge. If you can’t figure it out… nevermind…
Ann –
Like Freeagent just pointed out. I can work on a sRGB file in an AdobeRGB colorspace with no problems. I have all my life using PS. I did not assign. I make mention of assigning in one post by accident which unfortunately was not the proper time and then all’s you do is cling to that one post. Amazing. You do not view the screenshots I guess of what I also posted. If my desktop screenshot looked fine to you then I guess I have no problems -seriously. But if you want to help, then again… quit thinking I don’t know how to use CONVERT vs ASSIGN. I think I can read. I know I can calibrate. I know CM no matter what you say and if you want to stay small minded then we won’t get anywhere on this.
Also, it isn’t that I don’t know how to calibrate the notebook vs the ACD. An Apple Cinema Display is a higher quality screen and if you know anything about the Macbook Pro Screen, it is crap. Mine is acting up even more right now but even if it was brand new out of the box and just fine, it is not what they advertized. Apple actually used a 6 BIT COLOR DISPLAY. You want to try to calibrate a screen that:
QUOTE:
"through the use of a software technique referred to as ‘dithering,’ which causes nearby pixels on the display to use slightly varying shades of colors that trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it is not truly that color."
Good luck getting a good calibration on that. They lied. I bought into it. Then had to fork out another $1,200 for the ACD. Guess they got what the wanted. More sales.
Sometimes you people really just look for showing off what you know without reading anything that the person posts. You seem apt to jump on things and jump to conclusions without really taking a look at the problem from all angles. Ann, really… And Ramon, please….
I give you a chance to honestly help out and this is what y’all come up with? Buko was helpful and actually stated what my image looked like in a variety of programs. That was helpful. Especially when I stated my image did not look the same in that list of programs.
Thank you Freeagent for following up with your post. I do appreciate.
God, inadvertently … LOL… yes Ann I sleep walk and go turn on my computer and hack it up to frustrating my waking self during the day and don’t it.
If anyone has any real answers to my questions I just posted, like what does Opera or Safari do with untagged images or just when does the mac us MonitorRGB or your calibrated profile when using which Apps would be nice to know. Like during the creation of a screen shot or screen grap. Isn’t that when the Mac uses MonitorRGB?
I still openly welcome any help or advice or any chance to learn more about converting from a PC to a Mac. But I am actually draigned and tired of seeing things like:
Utter nonsense, caught fortuitously by me
I little common sense goes a long way. So really Ramon, what was your point? Was it that tough to figure out I was referring to ACR when you can call up from Bridge. Was that too tough to understand. WOW, impressive Ramon… f o r t u i t o u s l y damn impressive.
I’m outta here… stroke your egos. Am I mad finally at this. Yea. At first I really tried to be patient with the process but now it is as if you simply mock it.
I will keep looking to see if anything of real use gets posted and will be happy to discuss meaningful help. I am tired of being baited for a fight or made to look like an idiot when it very well could be a bad notebook for whatever reason. Maybe I will just start a new thread and go from there and ask questions elsewhere. After all, this thread is now 120 messages, and there are a lot written by a lot including myself not worth reading.
Actually, I feel a little bad about this, because I too thought "frankly do not begin to comprehend the principles of CM" to begin with. But I’m now beginning to wonder if there might not be something odd with that MBP after all. You’re definitely seeing things that should not happen, like a "Convert To" that results in a color change.
You could bring this over to the Color Management forum, or perhaps even the PS Win forum. We don’t know much about Macs there, but maybe someone has seen something similar and can point you in the right direction.
As for
Are you that apt to nit pick and pick a fight anywhere you can
….well, that’s just how these forums are. An unfortunate choice of words, and it bounces right back in your face. It happens to everyone, and in the end, you learn from it.
Please excuse me if this was already discussed but at 120+ posts, this discussion has lost coherence and readability. Of the few screen shots that I see with odd color, the Photoshop document window clearly shows an asterisk in the title bar. The asterisk indicates a mismatch between the color space of the image and Photoshop’s working color space. If you want consistent color, you need to get rid of that asterisk. Or is this an over-simplification?
If you have an asterisk it means for instance that the image is sRGB, but your working space is something else, say, Adobe RGB. It’s just for information. As stated previously, the image itself will remain sRGB.
I don’t think we are appreciating the importance of this information. Adobe doesn’t just throw asterisks or pound signs around for fun. If Randal is using the screen shot to demonstrate color variances, it makes perfect sense to have things in order before taking that screen shot.
Guys, I just got back from the Apple store. On my 23" Apple Cinema Display, the replaced:
Part 646-0386 Q49C LCD Part 630-8054 Q49C MLB
Thank god for warranty work. That came out to $798.00.
On the Macbook Pro –
They are in the midst of replacing the VIDEO CARD. They are waiting for the new one to come in. Now, in all fairness to Apple, I will elaborate:
yes, Randal, we are replacing the video card as promised. Though our loop test passed for this video card, with all the documentation you have on your problems, our technician feels replacing the video card is a good place to start.
Ok. So that is now where it stands. I have to wait till they get a new video card in and tested as not to give me what they feel may be a lemon video card. Their words.
Once again – I will keep everyone posted when I get the notebook back and get to test the system. I will post screen shots as well of every setting I can to ensure we all know what ‘page’ I am on.
Jim, I agree but I would also expect if I was in an AdoberRGB workspace and pasting a screenshot that from what I understand on the mac should be a MonitorRGB – that a pop up box would have popped up asking me what to do as there is a mismatch. I have Preserve Embedded checked so when Pasting, maybe the Preserve Embedded over rode the mismatch and created part of the deception?
See, I would think when you checkmark the box for ASK WHEN PASTING, that it would do so. So the only other logical thought is that PS didn’t feel there was a mismatch. Hum… I have never set my color settings or workspace to match my monitor profile. Ever. The only time I could see do that would be when working in Final Cut Express and editing my Sony FX1 tapes. But I was not set up to do that.
I am going to start a new thread about looping an action to do some testing. Please check that out and see where we can take this.
I have never set my color settings or workspace to match my monitor profile.
In case that was inferred from my comments… do not do that. I am simply noting the mismatch of profiles within Photoshop that is causing the asterisk to display in the title bar. This has nothing to do with a monitor profile.
I may be mis-reading the images you have posted but if there was an issue with the screen capture function, wouldn’t both the desktop wallpaper image and the images appearing in Photoshop be affected in the same way?
It would help to see the original file called ‘BestBear11.jpg’ posted as you did with the others, what options you select when the file opens and you are prompted with a profile mismatch, and a screen shot like desktop.jpg but expanded a bit to see what the desktop wallpaper looks like in Photoshop as well.
Hey Jim, thanks for the ideas, but for now I have to wait till my notebook comes back then would love to share any of the files or settings or what ever you would like to see to examine this. Can you give me a few days for them to get it back to me?
Ok. Let me also throw this out and though it may be difficult to explain or visualize, if it doesn’t make sense, ask questions.
During the time I was editing the original RAW and saving to DNG then Opening in PS using the ACR workflow (only four choices here) and using AdobeRGB as my PS color settings, I did do the following and at one point saw things get really ugly…
I was using CS3 at this time. I was using my 23"ACD as the main screen and my MBP as the secondary screen. I was opening ACR, PS, and Bridge on the ACD.
I wanted to keep my pallattes open in PS and not have to TAB them open and hidden, so I made the MBP as my main screen and the ACD as my secondary screen. I moved Bridge and ACR to stay on the ACD and let PS stay on the MBP but moved the open image to the ACD so I could keep my pallettes open in PS.
Then things all of a sudden after a few hours went crazy and I had all kinds of color shifts. I discussed this with Adobe one day when I was at their office. I said I would try to re-create this scenerio because I was asking if this was interferring with workspaces or color spaces by doing this and they were not sure. But I have since not had the time to try this set up again. And because I upgraded to CS4 where you can manage the pallettes better I didn’t think about going back to this type of setup.
So, do you think having one program on the MBP (in this case PS even though the working image was on ACD) and having ACR and Bridge open on the ACD was a recipe for disaster?
Hum… never had a chance to re-test this but did work on a lot of images during this time with this setup. About 200 images.
If Randal is using the screen shot to demonstrate color variances, it makes perfect sense to have things in order before taking that screen shot.
For the sake of clarity, yes, I agree. He would have a simpler case, easier to argue and easier for others to untangle. But it shouldn’t matter for the final result. There’s no scenario I can think of that would wrongly assign a profile, and certainly not with the color settings he posted.
told you you couldn’t cal a low end MBP. And it sure as hell isn’t the video card, they’re just trying to get rid of you. Windows uses ICM which is actually their version of ColorSync, and you have to tell it to use it. You can’t trust anything but Photoshop on a Winbox. No one can or will follow your posts because you are way too verbose. Please learn to edit. You lumped Safari in with Opera and Yee whatever that is. Safari is color managed. just an example of not editing. ColorSync has problems but it is safe enough for ordinary use..
Lundberg, I see what you are saying, but I mean what do I do? I can’t throw another 4-5 grand into yet another system. I understand you are saying you can’t cal a low end MBP. Can you cal using an ACD? Then like I was doing, just do not look at anything on the MBP screen?
Also Lundberg, I did lump in a few apps not knowing which were color managed and which were not. That was one of the things I was hoping to learn.
Remember, for the last two years I have been out for the most part in remote Alaska during which time I switched from a PC to the mac. I only get a few winter months to learn things. Then I am out again where there is little internet access or contact like this.
In March, I go back out there. Who knows what will change while I am gone. For all I know, Snow Leopard could come out and everything will run 64 bit. I am usually out for 6-8 months.
RQ is a moving target. He corrects himself over and over and over There’s not enough consistency in his statements and, as far as I’m concerned, the only thing he has established unambiguously is a manifest lack of credibility.
If I go back to his first posts, there’s repeated, unmistakable proof that he was assigning profiles to his images. This was not a single slip of the keyboard.
There’s no doubt in my mind that, if and when he finally realizes all that he was doing incorrectly, he would come back to announce how Apple fixed his machine and vindicated him.
This has nothing to do with "putting down" a person, it’s just an explanation of the frustration brought about by a discussion that is going nowhere and which will prove a source of endless confusion for other users reading this thread in the future.
There’s no scenario I can think of that would wrongly assign a profile, and certainly not with the color settings he posted
But something is wrong as the color is off and the asterisk appears. This goes back to Ramón’s ‘moving target’ comment. Something is not being fully explained and that which has been explained does not necessarily match up with the sample images. This is probably something very simple that could be corrected with a second set of eyes right on his computer – – but who is brave enough to hang out with Randall and all those bears? 🙂
Re-reading the thread shows that 90% of it is arguing over semantics and who said what and where, and I think Randal must take his share of the responsibility for that by being very unfocused throughout. Too many words going in all directions; too little real information.
But there was one piece of rock in between all the fluff; and I quote:
on my mac right now, the AdobeRGB image will vastly change when converting, not assigning, but converting to sRGB
Now who can explain that? That shouldn’t happen under any "scenario I can think of".
But is he talking about the change appearing in Photoshop, as soon as he hits convert, or is he talking about looking at it elsewhere? If you view an image in your non-colour-managed app, then convert it from AdobeRGB to sRGB and compare it to the original, of course it will look vastly different. From what I could see going through this post, the OP was making all kinds of comparisons between apps, what he saw on his desktop and in Photoshop. Rather than read through 100+ posts, it would be better for the OP to show a screenshot of his current settings, and describe step by step what he’s doing. Every procedure, button click and app he is switching to and what he sees at each step.
Yes, I did use the word assign at a bad time and that seems to have tainted everything else sinced. But I am not that big of an idiot not to know to look at the action and ensure it was set to convert and not assign, as well as not manually try to convert, and again not assign.
I was in the middle of trying this on my MBP when I saw this thread come up. And when I was continuing to see problems, I was trying anything to fix it. As I stated, I have had problems since I bought this mac.
The environment I have always discussed has been in PS, not another app.
Freeagent is correct, just a simple task as taking an image in AdobeRGB and using the menu steps to convert to sRGB showed a complete color shift.
There is nothing for now I can add though until I get the mac back. Then I can test from there and we can look at every setting as I will post every setting and show explain every step.
My apologies for getting off topic as many have pointed out. That or the line of no longer focused. I will say it is hard to stay focused when one feels they are constantly being accused of doing a technique or something that they simply are not. It is fustrating. If you get to the point you feel you are begging people to believe you know how to select a menu item like CONVERT and they still accuse you of somehow using ASSIGN, then where do you go from there?
Ramon, I am not using anything to vindicate myself. Had I wanted to do that, I would not have said anything about their conclusions with the test results. That the video card passsed. I did state though they admit a video card test to see if the card is within specs does not mean a whole lot especially in my case. That is why regardless of the test, they will replace the card.
Once I get the mac back, and can see what it now does, I will start a new thread and like I said, add screenshots of all settings, and all steps. I am here to figure this out and appreciate all the help. But again, if I am going to tell the group what I am doing and be accussed of doing something else, then how can we solve anything?
Thanks.
ps- Ramon, I did like the joke about the bald guys and comb. Funny. That was a nice touch. I have no problem with subtle humor. Thanks.
The environment I have always discussed has been in PS, not another app
If we are not discussing this in relation to displaying the image in a web browser (color managed or not) then sRGB is not really a specific concern and another thread should have been started. Most of us participating in this thread are assuming that the color management issue involves other apps (ie: web browsers).
just a simple task as taking an image in AdobeRGB and using the menu steps to convert to sRGB showed a complete color shift
That is what is supposed to happen when you convert colorspaces. That is why we use the word ‘convert’ as it is not the ‘same’.
But there was one piece of rock in between all the fluff; and I quote:
Yes, but that contradicts the various prior statements that he was assigning, and that’s where (lack of) credibility comes into play, since the correction came only after numerous comments by others.
In #16 (his first intervention in this thread) he states unequivocally:
Converting the profile won’t work. You have to assign the profile. If you convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB or ‘save for web’ which will do the same, the colors will de-saturate.
Try to assign a profile and see if that keeps your colors the way you want them. Assigning the profile should take the image from Adobe RGB to sRGB without a perception of change to you including saturation.
In #19:
opps… after testing, assigning does fix what he felt was the de-saturation and while the profile is now a ‘liar’ as Ann puts it, it works in Color Management browsers (of course) and as wallpaper on the desktop.
This is why I output from ACR to sRGB knowing that my final is going for a web presence. Converting will take the color out of the image
His backpedaling later is not credible, especially since he goes on to further nonsense in added directions.
As much as his bravery around bears is admirable, his credibility is zilch, as far as I’m concerned.
Secondly, experience has shown me that the possibility of PEBKAC invariably increases with the verbosity of the posters and the virulence of their rants.
I’m just not buying it and feel no need to apologize for that.
As I said in #135:
There’s no doubt in my mind that, if and when he finally realizes all that he was doing incorrectly, he would come back to announce how Apple fixed his machine and vindicated him. Yeah, right. :/
This is certainly not semantics. ‘Gray’ was used to make a blatant point that was apparently missed by the CM ‘experts’ here. You cannot have a 100% perfect conversion of color spaces. If such was possible, there would be no point in having color spaces to convert.
CONVERTING changes the numbers (but not the APPEARANCE).
WTF?
That’s a new one to me. It may or may not depending upon the source and destination color space. Converting "tries" to retain the color appearance between color space differences during conversion.
Going from sRGB to a wider gamut like ProPhoto RGB, the color will be retained when converting. But going in the opposite direction, if there are out-of-gamut colors, they will be clipped (relative colorimetric rendering intent) when converting, or the whole range of colors will be compressed to make them fit (perceptual rendering intent).
Great… Now Ramon is lacking the credibility he accused Randall of lacking. If in one post you argue my comment about colors changing in conversion and then explain the color changing (clipping) in another post, that ruins your credibility. 🙂
If there are out of gamut colors relative to sRGB, they will most certainly not be remotely rendered on a lousy laptop screen anyway when using any wider color space, so when you convert to sRGB (the context and subject of this thread) there will be NO change on screen. Period.
There will be NO perceptible color change on the screen
In the words of a previous poster, WTF?! Cycle through the many profile conversion previews on your computer and tell us if you still stand by that comment.
Not even Bruce Fraser made such an absolute comment. Go back to the books, zaldidun.
I got involved in this thread because I thought I might learn something (and I have) – but this is not getting us anywhere.
Converting from a smaller space into a bigger will leave all appearances unchanged. Going the other way introduces a risk of clipping, but otherwise the colors should remain unchanged. Can we agree on that?
Here’s the question: If we accept that Randal is seeing significant color changes by a simple conversion (and he says he does), what could possibly be the reason for that?
I don’t know the answer to that, and I really would like to know.
again, it depends and it’s not a sworn fact. There are still variables that can introduce very light shifts in the image. Most of the time they may not be noticeable, but change they do. Having a low bit depth such as 8 bit – and dealing with rounding of numbers during the conversion may or may not yield a perceptual change.
Significant color change is also subjective. Very light pastel colors are the most affected in small increments in a conversion.
What Randal is experiencing is an alleged large perceptual change that is brought on by user error.
Cycle through the many profile conversion previews on your computer and tell us if you still stand by that comment.
My comment was:
If there are out of gamut colors relative to sRGB, they will most certainly not be remotely rendered on a lousy laptop screen anyway when using any wider color space, so when you convert to sRGB (the context and subject of this thread) there will be NO change on screen. Period.
I stand by that.
My lousy windoze laptop has been sitting in a closet for over six weeks now and it doesn’t have any Adobe applications on it.
My working computers do not use lousy screens. RQ’s MackBook uses what, a miserable 6-bit screen?
In the context of what had been discussed in this thread until Oblak/Jordan/Oblique/AngieB1175/etc.etc showed up here, of course I stand by my comment.
Here’s the question: If we accept that Randal is seeing significant color changes by a simple conversion (and he says he does), what could possibly be the reason for that?
Wow. I was gone all day and see a lot of ‘discussions’ have been going on here.
Tell you what. I hopefully will get the laptop back tomorrow. I was going to first start off by setting color mgmt and do some test using the COLOR LCD profile that the notebook uses and was going to wait to use any calibration hardware/software until after I determine whether there is a problem or not now that there will be a new video card though I am sure some people here will not think that that will matter.
I will not even plug in the ACD until after I open several images and see what happens when I convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB. There are other tests I also intend to run.
If there are any steps anyone here would like me to take, tell me now. If the group wants me to use any downloaded images or anything that they want to present and if the group wants me to set up any CM in a specific way and/or post screenshots and then perform anything on an downloaded image and then upload to a server so they can verify the results, I will be more than happy to do so.
If you want me to record what I do as if we are creating an action so you can verify I follow your ever step, then fine.
If not, there is nothing I can do till I get the laptop back and then we can go from there.
So now is your chance to speak up and I will do whatever I can to help solve problems or end arguements.
Now, on a side note – and I really hate to ask this question in fear of the reprisals and comments that may come from asking, but I looked back to a book called Color Corrections which I bought about the time PS7.0.1 came out. In that book, the author was suggesting that if you were going to strictly post to the web, to set your workspace to your monitor cal profile and then Save to the Web which would convert to sRGB and not tag the image. I almost hate to ask but any opinions on that? (Please, I do not intend to do this. I have always worked in PS using AdobeRGB. It is only a question, theoritical at that.)
Jim Jordan, I was explaining what programs I used to view the images. I was also stated that I was only converting in PS. No other program. Someone brought up that I may be editing in another program. I am stating the only progam I am editing in is PS. Otherwise, I am viewing on the desktop and a few other programs and was trying to find what was going on.
Ramon. I am not backpeddling. I no longer care to continue to explain the one post where I used the word assign bu there it is one last time. For the last year I used the laptop, mainly in Alaska, I did not do anything but edit a RAW in ACR and save as DNG.
Then I took the DNGs and did a little more work in ACR and opened in PS and added adjustment layers and even posted at one point an action I wrote that created 5 or 6 really cool adjustment layers for someone to correct even further shadows, three quarter tones, mid tones, one quarter tones and highlights.
Then, I had another action that took the image and did two things, saved as a PSD in one folder, and converted to sRGB using Save As…
I did not even try Save to Web at this point.
Then, I upgraded CS3 to CS4 while I had already edited a few hundred images using the above workflow. So in CS4 I was continuing to edit my images.
Then, I see weird things going on and so one night tried Assigning. Wow, stupid as I was that seemed to fix my problem. Well of course it would appear to do that once you try Assigning. Sure, looks great to me, but what a recipe for disaster and thankfully Ann quickly corrected my error and bad advice.
Now, since… everyone want to continue to say I don’t know the difference between convert and assign and yet when you worked on me and prior to my posting the images you looked at, I converted those images just for you and posted them so you could look at them.
If you of all people want to load up some AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB files for me to download and then record what I do to convert, let me know where to download them and I will upload them including the action to record my steps.
Re your question about posting on the web: That’s dead wrong. You are the only person in the world with that profile, so what’s anyone else supposed to do with it?
Standard procedure is to Convert to sRGB, then Save For Web.
Whether you want to embed the sRGB profile or not is open to discussion, but if you want people with wide-gamut monitors to have a fair chance to see your images correctly (and assuming they are using a color-managed browser) – you should embed it.
everyone want to continue to say I don’t know the difference between convert and assign
LOL! If you promise … I believe you 🙂
About uploading – how about yousendit.com and we can all have a look? One prior to conversion and one converted where you see the color shift? It could also be helpful if you posted screenshots of the histograms before and after.
In that book, the author was suggesting that if you were going to strictly post to the web, to set your workspace to your monitor cal profile and then Save to the Web which would convert to sRGB and not tag the image.
That is very bad advice. As Freeagent has just explained to you, you would be the ONLY person in the world seeing what you intended if you followed that advice.
I don’t use a laptop so I don’t know if they offer a choice of sRGB instead of the "COLOR LCD profile". If they do, that might be a better starting-point.
Also, since the advent of the wide-gamut monitors, I am now tagging ALL images that I post on the Web (which I never did in the past).
I figured it was bad advice but believe me, I have read that advice in more than just the one book I pointed out. They also recommend that for people using video and creating video clips. To use MonitorRGB. If I look at what they are saying, to take what you see on your monitor, not anything going to print, so what you see on your monitor, and then converting that to sRGB (and at that time, not embedding or tagging), well… I can see what the intention was.
Now, I am unsure why you and Freeagent would state that ‘you would be the ONLY’ person to see what was intended’. It seems to me if you calibrate your monitor and use that profile which is exactly what you see on screen, and convert that to sRGB and at that time untagged, that everyone would be seeing the image in sRGB exactly the way you saw it. It would not print that like.
Of couse, I would not do this using a MBP as I am doubtful the gamut is for the pro.
But again, there are many places that reference to use MonitorRGB and convert to sRGB and Save for Web if one is only using the image for the web. So I thought I would ask.
Freeagent –
I have a server to post to kayakingbear.com and unless there is a reason to use the one you pointed out, then I can post to mine. I was saying if someone want to upload a file in either ProPhoto or AdobeRGB so they know exactly what to look for, then fine.
As for the historgram, still love that idea and plan on keeping an eye on it. I think that is the one place we can know for sure if things are shifting.
the other thing I thought of last night was if there is still an apparent problem, then maybe someone in the group will help by using VNC to connect to my computer and see exactly what I see and exactly what I do.
SIDENOTE: (in other words, don’t read if you don’t want more info)
Adobe, when I talked with them about a year ago today, sent a program by email and then could look at my screen and see exactly what I was talking about and so we met when I went back to Seattle. I became a member of the prerelease forums and got the prerelease software to test. There are several programs, I’m sure, to allow a person ‘anywhere’ to watch what I do on my machine and see what I see.
When I first got back to Seattle and showed what I saw on my screen, the next version of ACR went to higher quality previews because of the dithering on my screen, which is partially inherent to the screen and part was the quality of the image they were calculating for the preview.
Since, I have met with Adobe a couple of times and have given them a wish list and spent hours going over what I do during my workflow.
I have nothing but good things to say about Adobe. I feel blessed for the relationship we have established and cannot think of another company that has gone so far out of way to help as they have.
APPLE however, lied. So can I be mad at them. Yes. The MBP is crap. Period. And if ever I can afford to get a Mac Pro to use, I will. Hard to go back to Windows when I have so much invested in software and books.
there are many places that reference to use MonitorRGB and convert to sRGB and Save for Web if one is only using the image for the web.
And all of them are still promoting long-outdated and thoroughly BAD advice!
They are also disregarding the fact that you have the capacity of working from within a properly Color Managed application (Photoshop) which is already taking your monitor profile into consideration.
If you could guarantee that your Profiled Monitor was displaying the theoretical sRGB output exactly there might have been some sense in it but you can’t, and it almost certainly isn’t, and the chance of the recipient’s monitor being likewise is probably a lot less than 1%.
Thanks Ann. I appreciate the fast response and extra time to go over that one more time. I see what they were intending but also see exactly what you are saying.
randalqueen: If you didn’t see immediately why " Now, on a side note – and I really hate to ask this question in fear of the reprisals and comments that may come from asking, but I looked back to a book called Color Corrections which I bought about the time PS7.0.1 came out. In that book, the author was suggesting that if you were going to strictly post to the web, to set your workspace to your monitor cal profile and then Save to the Web which would convert to sRGB and not tag the image. I almost hate to ask but any opinions on that? (Please, I do not intend to do this. I have always worked in PS using AdobeRGB. It is only a question, theoritical at that.) " is stupid, then you don’y have a firm grasp of the subject. Please relax and stop being so verbose, think a little bit, do your tests , post your results somewhere where others can see them.
if you were going to strictly post to the web, to set your workspace
to your monitor cal profile and then Save to the Web which would convert to sRGB and not tag the image. I almost hate to ask but any opinions on that?
that is logical BUT Ps is already viewing through the monitor profile as someone already pointed out…so why drag our color through monitor profile conversion
I am working on two new pages, maybe they can help
I suspect sRGB and WindowsRGB Soft Proof the same "No perceptible change" (because the file is already in the sRGB Windows space and Photoshop is SoftProofing through the monitor profile) but will you please confirm– thanks!
Soft-proofing in: Windows RGB = No perceptible change
I also posted the results of soft-proofing in other spaces as well, including sRGB, separately as I thought that they would be of interest.
——–
I suspect sRGB and WindowsRGB Soft Proof the same "No perceptible change" (because the file is already in the sRGB Windows space and Photoshop is SoftProofing through the monitor profile) but will you please confirm– thanks!
I don’t think that is what it means.
Basically I think that it means that "Windows RGB" is a Gamma 2.2 sRGB Profile; and sRGB is the same thing and is being soft-proofed though a Monitor profile which is also set for Gamma 2.2.
Macintosh RGB is a gamma 1.8 Profile hence the lighter rendering; and Monitor RGB is displaying the full-range of available colors possible in its wide gamut
My MBP won’t be ready till tomorrow at the earliest. And I found they are replacing the MLB because the video card is integrated. They got that in today and want to run loop tests all night.
Sidenote –
Also, I see Apple is no longer going to carry the 23" Apple Cinema Display in matte. They are now going to carry a 24" LED Glossy Cinema Display that connects to your mini display port for notebooks. They have a new product for the 15" MBP that makes the glossy screen look matte and will have one for the new 24" LED ACD eventually, they said.
So the only matte screen left currently on the website is the 30" ACD. The 24" was $899. The 30" is $1,799.
I guess LaCie’s are still available from there site 😉
But I do have a question:
I plan on eventually getting out of this MBP. I here that CS5 should be 64 bit. It appears for now the Mac Pro’s selling new are not 64 bit, but I guess they may be hardware ready for Snow Leopard (64bit?).
Does anyone know if CS5 will be 64bit (or can venture a guess) and will current Mac Pro Quads selling today be able to run 64bit if Snow Leopard or the next Mac OS (that is 64bit) comes out?
Wouldn’t want to figure a way to buy a Mac Pro Quad desktop right now at a base cost around $2,799.00 to find out it will not be 64 bit capable. So thought I would ask, while I wait for my MBP.
and because I do not use boot camp and Vista 64, I didn’t think of that.
Plus – as I have only been back from Alaska for a short time, I did not know if the models at Apple were really new and what was just coming out right before Christmas or what has been out for a little while.
I didn’t know if we can expect to see some models that were out after the 5th gen G5 and the brand new Mac Pro Quads I see today online. I haven’t been around for the history of what came after the G5 and have no idea. I just don’t want to buy something in preparations for a 64 bit CS and not have the right hardware and have to buy something else yet again.
Looks like the biggest thing on the NEW MacBookPro is a graphics card update and larger harddrive. My two weakest points with my current MBP. Go figure…
That would be the Main Logic Board with integrated video. To replace one you replace both.
But, that means my laptop is exactly where we left off. So, that said, we can test what we have and now I can include my ACD.
I just got everything plugged in and am about to see what I can, and will post settings with this MBP while it is still what you believe is to be good hardware and user error.
By the way, my ACD looks brand new and nice. They replaced basically all of it.
I got my MBP back with the old MLB as the new one was DOA and another one is on order. So I decided for this test not to calibrate using Monaco XR Optic Pro with ColorEyes, but just the one profile that comes supported with the MBP as if a user was not calibrating (though even if I use calibration, the results are pretty much the same… ugly!)
First I make sure that the programs are running on my ACD. Then I check to see that the Cinema Display is set to 2.2 gamma and D65 (which I save as Cinema HD Calibrated).
Then I check my Color Settings in PS CS4. Then I post those.
I hit the cntrl+cmmd+shift+3 to take a screen shot to the clipboard. The screenshot is of my wallpaper or desktop, whichever.
NOW –
If I choose method A when opening a new doc in PS CS4 to paste into, the image will come in way over saturated and look absolutely horrible. I would say like a 90% or more increase in saturation. Method A has me working in an AdobeRGB workspace.
If I choose method B, then of course the image will look exactly like my desktop, but please follow along… (Method B is using my MonitorRGB)
If I continue to work with method A, and convert to sRGB first then Save to Web, or just simply open up the sRGB in a browser that supports color management, the image is further increased in saturation and looks almost nuclear.
If I continue to work with method B, and convert to sRGB first then Save to Web, or just simply go view the sRGB in a browser that is NOT COLOR MANAGED, then the images is only slightly over saturated (maybe 20-30%) and will have a slight yellow cast on it.
It does not seem to matter on screen D whether or not I embed the profile, it does the same thing either way.
I have tried to use and not use Black Pt Compensation but that really does not do much.
My ACD right now looks absolutely incredible. Looks great. All my work from previous is all fine.
But try to get any of this to sRGB or for the web, or at least post a simple screen shot, can’t.
If I look at this image in a Color Mg Browser like Safari or Firefox enabled, then the image looks way too saturated and horrible. Even the people at Apple Store can’t believe how bad it looks on my laptop, but this is even on my ACD.
If I look at that same image in a Non Color Mg Browser like disable Firefox or use a program called Xee, it looks slightly hot, or saturated, and slightly gains a yellow cast or shift in colors.
If the image looks the same to you in any browser or app – color managed or not, then that is something I doubt I will ever see with the MBP.
If the image look even the slightest bit too saturated, or strange, then think what I see on my end. Nuclear Puke on the screen. Yet again, in PS CS4 if I take any AdobeRGB photo or image this time around, and convert to sRGB, looks fine all the way up to taking out of PS and viewing in anything else EXCEPT BRIDGE. There or in ACR they look just fine. Like they look in PS CS4.
Anyone care to explain why Safari or Firefox shoots the color thru the roof and shifts colors? These are color managed apps?!
In the Preview app on the mac, you can see a difference when I embedded or did not embed a profile but it’s not exactly coming out correct, just a different flavor. Nothings right in Preview either.
By the way, I took shots from RAW though the DNG to the PSD then JPG. I took new RAWs to test versus older work and even really old things I once did in PS7.01.
You don’t really expect me to read all that verbiage, do you, RQ?
You might luck out and have some of the others who read this thread actually read the whole thing.
I saw a link in there and clicked on it, without knowing the exact context. What I saw was the top of the bear clearly oversaturated by some ghastly color management error, like having an sRGB image to which a different, wrong profile was assigned first and then converted to sRGB, masquerading as a genuine tagged sRGB image.
Take that same JPEG from Pixentral, open it in Photoshop without color managing it, i.e. discarding the embedded wrong profile. You’ll see it practically go up in flames. Now ASSIGN (yes ASSIGN this time) the sRGB profile (to undo your initial ghastly assigning of a wrong profile) and BINGO!, you’ll see the real colors at last.
Save that file just like that, keeping the sRGB profile just as it is. Now it will look fine in Photoshop, Bridge, Safari, Firefox with or without color management enabled, and every other damned color-managed application you can thing of in any platform.
Wait a freaking minute! I just saw your other link. Geeze!
You’re using your gosh-darned Monitor Profile in your file! You’re nuts! NEVER use yoiur monitor profile for anything but your Display Preferences in System Preferences.
Maybe y’all should have read the steps I took and you would see why I posted or said or did what I did.
GB –
you link has nothing to do with why I am getting over saturated right now. Read my post.
Ramon –
I too noticed that GIF in the one screenshot but no settings were changing it. I still saved to JPG.
Yes, I stated in my post why I used both MonitorRGB and AdobeRGB to convert to sRGB and reported why each failed.
If you read my post, you will see this is not a PEBCAK situation, but oh well…
The only thing of interest so far that you have written on my post was being able to embed the history into the file. I did not know that could be done and would like to know how.
To make comments, you may want to read the post in entirely.
Set your Color Settings to North America Prepress 2
Open your original RAW image in ACR.
Save from ACR as a 16-bit Adobe RGB .psd and open it in Photoshop.
Edit it and resize (as necessary) and downsample to 8-bits.
Convert to sRGB and save as a JPEG making sure that you embed the sRGB Profile. (Or use Save for Web with the sRGB and embedding Profile boxes checked.)
Post the image on Pixentral.
Now look at your image in Safari.
And just forget ENTIRELY about Desktop images; Screen-shots; non-color managed applications like Word or Opera; and soft-proofing in Monitor Space.
forget ENTIRELY about … soft-proofing in Monitor Space.
For the benefit of anyone trying to troubleshoot Mac color problems, using Photoshop to "Soft Proof" a sRGB file in "Monitor RGB" provides a very important clue.
I am always amazed how these threads wind out past 200 posts with no progress because the answer is usually clearly provided and reconfirmed served times up front and these threads always get so mixed up that no one can follow them.
I will add I wrote that link specifically in regards to this thread, it would take someone with a basic understanding of those principals about 5 minutes to prove if the Mac was handling color properly (and move on to the corruption or bad hardware theory).
Apparently, in this case, Apple has determined there is bad hardware involved.
But I will still maintain the using Ps Soft Proof feature to troubleshoot monitor color issues is probably the most important tools in the box and not something that should be dismissed until it has been ruled out (maybe I missed that part?)…
I completely understand what you are saying. When I went and moved to another location to visit some friends, I got three images to work. Exactly as you stated and what I have done, then it started acting up again. Opening from ACR to PS started shifting colors, this time washing them out. No change in settings from the three images that worked.
So I looked at all the settings and saw nothing strange or anything that could have changed. But, I changed the workspace in PS CS4 and closed, then opened up again and changed them back. I now have things working for now. But let me follow up with a few things, that are really going to annoy people…
1. When I can get things to work and I SFW and I will fail the test that G Ballard posted:
If steps 1-3 do not behave as outlined in The Conclusion and you can confirm you are profiled to 2.2 gamma, and you have set "North America Prepress 2" in Color Settings, and previously Converted the file to sRGB then something else is going on…like a bad monitor profile, or some obscure default setting you changed, or some corrupted file.
I will see a ever so slight reddish cast when saving for web but if I do not SFW and just save a sRGB, then for now all is fine in Firefox and Safari. But I know eventually, I will open a RAW in ACR like I do, and when I click to Open Image in PS CS4, then the image will look weak and de-saturated and that soon the problems I keep facing will come back.
I am showing you on the left, that it is sRGB. I am showing you on the right – that with Macintosh (No Color Management) there is no shift with that selected. Yet for now, at least what I see on my machine, all is well. I will post the three images that I did get to work in a second post.
I do have someone from Apple now who has the same MBP first gen who is actually reproducing some problems I am seeing but so far we have not gotten to other problems I see, this person does not.
actually, there IS a slight reddish shift on this in Safari. Bummer. But in Firefox, they those two uploaded images look exactly alike. And not the nuclear color I had last time on the test above.
Granted, I am not on my ACD and so just editing on the MBP so doubt the shots look all that great, but if they look acceptable, then things are kinda working. If the shots look horrible on you side, then I am not seeing that on my side.
Determining if the Mac color is behaving normally is routine and would take me about two minutes using the methods I outlined on my link.
Likewise, tagging Save for Web images defeats the purpose for troubleshooting web color issues, IMO, because color managed browsers will hide Source Profile problems if their profiles are embedded (and you won’t see the problem until you get on another machine or open then in an unmanaged web browser).
Also, it is normal for untagged sRGB to pick up a little saturation on a Mac (because ColorSync is defaulting/assuming/assigning/applying Monitor RGB to untagged color).
If the problem happens INTERMITTENTLY between Bridge>Adobe Camera Raw>Photoshop — then logic would suggest workflow/settings issues a NEW USER will provide clean Default preferences and if the problem follows there, I would look for what the problem files have in common (and how they are being revealed).
Until we understand the core theory behind the curtain, we will never understand how to effectively troubleshoot the problem…
I agree GB. Was I surprised that they put my old MLB back into the notebook and last night things were the same then today sometimes they seem to work – with no changes to any settings? I won’t know about the hardware issue till the next MLB comes in and hopefully that one will work and not be DOA when they get it.
I know this is the most frustrating situation. Apple will state the issue deals with third party software and if including monitor calibration, hardware.
Knowing for weeks I could not show a way to explain this, then it kinda works today then doesn’t then does is a poor sign. I can hear Ramon now saying I must be converting at the right time then assigning again and going back to old habits when it fails 🙂
I am not. LOL.
I am however about to go to a local Kinkos and get on a workstation and try to perform the same things on a different system. And just edit for an hour or so and pay the price and see what happens.
If anyone is in the Austin/San Antonio area, I would meet and let you take a look all you want. I was even tempted to mail the thing to Ramon and let him play with it all he wants. 😉
I can only post my settings at try at best to explain what I see.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Apple states (especially about Adobe software) the proof is in the pudding, as Grandma used to say.
I will suggest to politely demonstrate the problem and explain how it should be functioning.
Simply drag tagged and untagged sRGB versions of the PDI target file into Safari and tell them why the Mac is not displaying correctly if the problem doesn’t reproduce here, it probably isn’t an Apple problem.
Hey , g. !0.4.11, Preview 4.4.5 Preferences> Color> Automatic, instead of Apple CMM. WTF? Doesn’t seem to make the slightest difference on anything. Can’t find any explanation of Automatic anywhere, but assume it means it honors anything it finds.
By the way, I can do screenshots with no problems right now just like I would expect using a Color Managed icc Profile. I can show the screenshot in Firefox or Safari or even Xee.
I cannot explain this and why today for now, holding breath, it seems ok. I have not changed anything in my proceedures. I just kept banging away hoping it would work. Seems to for now.
If you keep getting that close to a bear with a cub we won’t need to worry about you much longer. You need to post images side by side or forget about it.
You really, really have to make an effort to be concise. I came back to the thread this afternoon and it was so long I just gave up. Verbosity helps no one.
saying only a part of the problem leads to guessing. And yet you are right, give too much information and they won’t read it all and jump to conclusions. As always, not a perfect system.
Lundberg –
There were two cubs and she nursed them, lying on her back in front of me. I would rather face that as I have a better understanding than what I see going on with my mac.
Second guessing anything from here on out on this system is kind of a moot point. Next Tuesday, it goes back and the new board goes in. I just wanted to update people while we waited and try yet again while I had the time.
Opening from ACR to PS started shifting colors, this time washing them out. No change in settings from the three images that worked.
Look VERY carefully when you open or save images from ACR to make certain that you have chosen your output settings carefully including the color profile.
In the images linked in #213 (kayakingbear.com/Ann_settings.jpg):
In the SFW version: Why have you chosen: "Preview: Macintosh No Color Management"?
actually, there IS a slight reddish shift on this in Safari.
And that is because you failed to embed the profile and Safari is therefore displaying it in your Monitor space.
In the images linked in #221:
The two images do NOT look exactly the same in Safari and that is because one has the correct sRGB profile embedded and the non-embedded version is being displayed in Monitor space.
I am currently away from home and am looking at this on a CRT monitor but even on that, the difference. although slight, is clearly apparent.
If I was using my regular wide-gamut NEC monitor the difference would be horrendous with screaming ultra-saturated oranges, reds and greens!
This is where you are going to come really unstuck if you fail to embed sRGB profiles in your web images as more and more of your viewers including the editors and art directors, who you wish to evaluate and purchase your photographs, buy wide-gamut monitors.
Thank you. I intentionally wanted to post an embedded and untagged version, though through all of our discussions have agreed that one should tag. But I just found it strange that Firefox sees them both the same while Safari does not, though you just explained (probably for the umpteenth time) why. And Ramon as well has mentioned that though he may not think I listen 😉
In #213, I did not change a thing. It went from working on three images to washing out. I shut down and later tried again and it worked again. No way to say just how frustrating that is. I even looked at heat issues and played with changing the display color settings thinking something is getting screwed up.
This is where part of this has been a learning curve about the Mac. The PC basically just diverts to sRGB. Some will argue to what extent but you just think of it as sRGB.
Mac however throws around the monitor profile for things like Safari and the desktop and Preview and other things. That is a MAC thing I am not use to and so that has created some frustrations because I had to add that into my trouble shooting knowledge base.
As for your question
In the SFW version: Why have you chosen: "Preview: Macintosh No Color Management"?
That was just to show that there wasn’t a gamma type shift as GB had brought up. In fact, according to his test, I am failing because when I preview in that area, and choose any of the 4, there is no change. So I was just showing one of the settings and pointing that out. Also on that tab I cannot explain to Ramon why I cannot get the bottom left corner to say anything but GIF.
The only time I have tried to use SFW though has been for these tests. Otherwise, I was saving an sRGB by converting an AdobeRGB in PSD format to sRGB. When things started to go awry, I panicked and tried ASSIGN. Bet ya I know not to do that again. (but actually I have learned the few times to assign).
Again, thank you for taking the time to look at these wherever you were and let me hear your thoughts.
Also on that tab I cannot explain to Ramon why I cannot get the bottom left corner to say anything but GIF.
The only time you should see GIF in that location is when you are using SFW to save a given file as a GIF. GIF is Indexed Colors, 256 colors total, and does not support an embedded profile. Under those circumstances, it’s perfectly natural and expected to see a huge increase in saturation with a strong tendency towards red when you open it without assigning an appropriate profile.
If you still see GIF when you have chosen JPEG in the upper right corner of that same SFW dialog, then your SFW Preferences (which are separate from Photoshop preferences) are totally hosed, corrupted to the max. You would need to trash your SFW Preferences and, if that doesn’t fix it, trash ALL your preferences and maybe even re-install the application if the problem persists.
I’ve been away a couple of days, and trying to catch up. But I don’t think I can add anything meaningful to what’s been said above.
Are we down to corrupt SFW preferences? Those three images look fine here (Windows, color-managed Firefox and "sRGB-gamut" monitors).
(Except, for my personal taste, I think you’re setting the black point a little high, blocking up the shadows. But that’s another matter. And the shots are still great).
Anyway, even if it’s been long and rambling, I think participating in this thread has been very educational. Thanks to all of you.
well, the last image isn’t right, as the laptop started acting up again. I looked at it on my roommates pc and it was not good.
I think I can get the results I want when things work on my end. Strange how again I can refer back to the test GB says to keep an eye on – the test from his website, and though I fail I get things to work. Something still isn’t right.
But for now I will just get the new MLB in and go from there. If I need anything then I will start a new thread, try to be concise, and we can try again.
Thanks Ann, Ramon, Freeagent, GB, Lund, well, everyone…
I am not using SFW right now on what I post because everything is strange here to some degree. I wouldn’t want you to think it is only a SFW corrupt pref.
My system even shows "cancel" bottons at times where only half the button is there. At times I drag an image over in PS when not full screen and the left side of the image pixelates and shows a strange pattern – sometimes, not all the time. This never happened till I got the replacement ACD back.
So do not think this is only a pref problem. I get the new MLB this coming week and will keep ya posted.
Concerning the last three that you posted: the first two are fine with regards to color balance but the third one (the Kodiak bear) has a strongly saturated yellow cast.
Randal, I’m using Coloreyes, but with a Spyder2 puck.
Going back and looking more closely: yes, the bear is obviously too yellow – and too saturated, but I tend to think everyone’s images are too saturated because I like very muted tones myself. But what caught my eye first was the blocked up shadows. That’s the one that prompted my comment.
The others are much better, but I still want to see some more detail under the sea-otter’s chin. Could you post a screenshot of the histogram? Maybe I’m having problems here…?
I can email you, but I think we should keep it here if possible.
I agree you have some outstanding photography and it is a shame you can’t get things to work for you. It sounds more like bad RAM when you see pixelation and other image defects, like streaks or missing areas. Please don’t keep referring to Windows, which is retarded at best and not color managed in any real sense unless you force it. No one here cares.
Press and hold Option+Command+Shift (Mac OS) as you start Photoshop. You are prompted to delete the current settings.
In CS4 according to what I read in the dialog, this is to choose another plug ins folder. I am not prompted to trash anything. Does Adobe keep up with the changes on their help files?
If you trash them manually, you exclude the possibility of the corrupted prefs themselves interfering with the automatic resetting through Command Option Shift at launch.
In CS4 according to what I read in the dialog, this is to choose another plug ins folder. I am not prompted to trash anything. Does Adobe keep up with the changes on their help files?
Your whole installation is an unholy mess, RQ. I think Lundberg02 may be right in that you have some serious hardware problems causing corruption, artifacts, etc.
I am not at home near my external hdd with the RAWs but will get the histograms when I can.
Yes, there is plenty of room and remember, though I just got back what was essentially a new ACD, even if I calibrate using ColorEyes, its still the same MLB for now, with the same integrated video card.
Once I get the MLB out and the new in, then I have decided not to use Time Machine to get back up but will re-install fresh.
I guess if the hardware is changing (MLB), then I need to also de-activate PS even though the harddrive will be the same. I do not know what Adobe looks for when deciding if you are loading on a different machine, the chipset of the processor, MLB, or ??
sorry to have brought it up again, but even on the link you provided, it stated
Command+Option+Shift (Mac OS). Then, click Yes to the message, "Delete the Adobe Photoshop Settings file?"
And yet that was not what I was getting. I was getting another dialog box for plugin folders.
That is precisely why I wrote:
Your whole installation is an unholy mess, RQ. I think Lundberg02 may be right in that you have some serious hardware problems causing corruption, artifacts, etc.
What the heck is the matter with you? Do you have reading comprehension problems? Or are you so enamored of your own long-windedness that you only read the verbiage you generate yourself?
Man this is getting old!
Listen, your photographic skills demand that you get yourself a proper graphics machine, and that means a desktop tower and one or two first-rate monitors. Stop screwing around with itty bity laptops. By all means take one out into the field, but get yourself a proper desktop tower, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a Windoze box or a Mac.
There’s no reason to get upset over an anti-Windoze rant.
Some of us have reasons for hating Windoze, and that’s why we have separate Windoze and Mac forum. This is the Adobe Photoshop Macintosh forum, whether you like it or not.
It was my misfortune to be forced to work on PC and Windoze machines under Messy-DOS and Windoze for almost two decades during my day job with Uncle Sam until I could no longer work. My disrespect and hatred of those systems has been thoroughly, earnestly and honestly earned.
It’s not surprising that my hatred for those operating systems I so despise shows through, and I make no apologies for that whatsoever.
Nor can I remotely promise that this will not continue to be the case. It would be like expecting a Holocaust survivor to show respect for the Nazis.
An entirely different thing would be showing disrespect for users of any system, which has not been the case here.
You and all other Windoze users have my complete respect and symphaty, not for being Windozers but for being persons, fellow human beings. I sincerely hope and believe that you do not define your identity by the machines you use, whether computer or cars.
I do not know what Adobe looks for when deciding if you are loading on a different machine, the chipset of the processor, MLB, or ??
The hard drive, with possible hooks to the CPU. So, if you’re going to wipe it clean (and I certainly would do that and then reformat it to zeros), deactivate Photoshop first.
When you reformat the drive for your Mac laptop (or any Mac) remember to use Mac Extended HFS+ (Journaled) and also NOT case-sensitive.
If you are trying to pin the ignorant label on Lundberg02 or on me, anonymous Freeagent, you couldn’t be more absurd. You have no idea who you’re dealing with.
I too have used Windows, every version since 3.1 up to and including WP with the exception of ME, and i stand by my remarks. I would bet serious money that when RQ used it, he didn’t know you had to turn off ICM in a secret location to print properly from Photoshop. I could not care less what you think, Joslin.
Actually, had all my work done at a commercial printer, no problems. I didn’t print from my system. Never had much reason to. I did go buy a printer to print out word docs when I wanted, and did at one point buy photo paper, then tried to print and usually within a few prints and adjustments in PS, could match print fairly well. Yes, my screen looked like crap but the prints were the goals and they came out just fine.
So no secret needed. I guess…
My work was web design and small print ads, logos, brochures, mainly stuff in CMYK or sRGB for web.
I am sorry, JJ, I believe I misinterpreted your comment. Freeagent may have signed off, but let me cite a typical example of Windows idiocy. Microsoft put out a remote desktop app for Mac which allowed you to see a Windows desktop on a Mac, with "full" instructions on how to implement it. It was six months before i found a chance remark in a forum somewhere that revealed the secret to making it work, which was an obscure setting in some unrelated "feature". Since I have been able to trade the Win laptop to an unsuspecting victim for a mini, I no longer concern myself with the biggest obstacle to productivity since the Industrial Revolution. OK, two more examples. When I last worked for a giant corp, I was involved with writing an enormous specification for an advanced missile fuzing system which I sincerely hope is in low rate production phase by now. The pubs people i worked with tried to answer my questions about the weird things Word would do, but they had to confess that "it just does that". I sent a fully edited and corrected version of the thing to my colleague who was responsible for meeting the customer’s submittal dates. He sent it from his laptop to them. They asked why it was garbage. I looked at it and it had been mangled beyond belief. I looked at mine and it was perfect.
The giant corp required me to watch their videos on the intranet. Windows NT SP 4 seemed to be incapable of doing this. I called tech support which was provided by Computer Sciences Corporation to all of our locations. They sent a "computer guy" type over to my cube and he spent the better part of three days trying to make it do QuickTime, Windows Media Player, and Real Player. On the last day when only QuickTime was working, he said why are you watching videos on company time anyway? I said (with emphasis), because I’m in management and it’s a requirement. Side note: when you called CSC they opened a ticket for your problem. They got paid by the ticket, cost plus. They had no FAQ site for common problems so they got paid a thousand times over for all the same stuff. I pointed this out to the Chief Engineer and got criticized for swearing.
OMG, I don’t believe it. I found the end. I was just going to check out the news and on the way pop into the Photoshop forum. I have no idea how much time has past. Everything is blurry…..
Here’s two that made me want to kick the damned windoze box to smithereens:
Would arrive at work in the morning and power on the windoze machine, then went to get my coffee in the expectation that I’d return to find the log-in window waiting when I got back. No such luck; the computer had not even started because it had found a freaking floppy in the A drive! Aaaaaaaargh!
And no production application should ever exit just because you close the freaking document window! Aaaaaaaargh!
Hum, and here I am thinking about donating my MBP just for the write off. Of course, I know full well that I didn’t make a dime this year and there is literally nothing to ‘write off’ but yet I kinda feel I may still come out ahead if I do this.
Would I go back to Windows… well… I kinda wonder if somehow or somewhere Gates and Jobs aren’t related in some way. Because neither is a perfect choice and yet both are still managing to get my money.
But this is about Photoshop… at least I think. I’m sure I can come up with something to ask that will unintentionally drive Ramon crazy.
Maybe I should ask why on Windows when you open an image in one folder and start saving to another folder, it understands. You File>Open and are in one folder, and when you save, it saves to the folder you told it to start saving to.
On a Mac, it wants to keep going back to the folder you opened the image from. Hum… well founded judgment I see. Opps, strike that last remark. No need for sarcasm here.
Besides, maybe there is a way to do this on the mac, who knows.
If you absolutely want to run your MacBook as a windoze box, foregoing the extra protection afforded by the default behavior regarding saving files, check this out:
That’s the type of remark that viscerally elicits a f#*k you response.
The humor is that Ramon uses Windows (or has recently chosen to use without a gun being held to his head) and even said that he was ‘much better off with my brand new Toshiba Satellite A205 <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?14@@.59b56d80/8>’. Even when it was suggested to use Linux, he stuck to his trusty Windows.
Thank you, Oblak, you prove my point: I speak not out of prejudice or ignorance but from informed personal experience. 😀
Also, since I got back home the last week of October, I haven’t touched the windoze laptop, which I fully expect to use only as a DVD burner in the field because it was so damned cheap!
Look a post above in that thread. Linux is more like OSX than Windows. So, yes, you have been near Linux if you use OSX. Ramón could have had a system with similar security and appearance as OSX and yet Ramón G Castañeda chose Windows.
And you, Jim Oblak from Ohio who also masquerades as Jim Jordan, AngieB1175, zaldidun, deafeningechochamber, Oblique, Cleveland Steamer, etc., to slander, provoke and insult, do you think that you have a sustainable claim to credibility?
Ramon, you have just been proven to be a two faced fool in regard to trashing ‘windoze’ for years here and yet you went out of your cave and still bought Windows – – – and now your best argument/defense for this odd behavior is to insult someone else with nonsense? I don’t masquerade like Ramon the Mac, er Windows user. 🙂
I have a use for burning images to DVD in the field. The Toshiba laptop is the cheapest way known to me of doing it. I don’t need the approval of an s.o.b. in Ohio to to buy whatever I damned see fit. What you think is of interest to no one, literally.
And I don’t need to defend anything from an emotional, totally unproductive emotional cripple like you. Go make your painfully lousy videos, little man in OH.
What I fail to understand is why Windoz users come to a Mac forum. You don’t see Mac users in a Windoz forum… That pretty much says it all you know. It’s like you come over here and try to get us to change our opinions of your OS. Why? Just mosey on.
So? Everyone feels what they feel. I have no attraction to the Windoz forum…I even have PC’s. So? I would never buy one. Customers give them to me which is perfect because I do use them to check web and for the sign business. So? If I could throw them all in the trash I would.
Come join the rest of us.
It most certainly is not "the rest of us" or you wouldn’t be over here trying to get us over there.
Even Ramon posts in the Windows forum. Come join the rest of us.
Why?
I do read the Windows Photoshop Forum postings from time to time and notice that that the general level of technical knowledge and ability seems to be at a far lower level there than it is here; and that the place is populated by people complaining that they are able to use OpenGL on their crippled Windoze computers.
Sure I post there every now and then, very infrequently, practically always as a result of being redirected there, but never to put down their OS or presuming to lecture them.
It takes a particularly bitchy bitterness disguised as witless sarcasm to generate posts like Oblak’s and JJ’s. Well, JJ has the English humor excuse. 😀
Cindy, "Over here"? You act as if there is some sort of a great divide. I’m not trying to get anyone to go anywhere. We’re all here (or there) to learn and grow.
There is no shame in someone using both platforms and wanting to be better at both. Even Ramon went through a significant growing process as he first claimed to have shared/borrowed a Windows laptop <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?14@@.59b4f720/2>, then realized Vista wasn’t so bad after all and admitted to actually purchasing that Toshiba laptop <http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?14@@.59b56d80/8>. We can all grow and we should all appreciate that growth. 🙂
How about turning the forum back to Photoshop? Do you guys have nothing better to do than spamming the forum with un-related stuff that the rest of us have to wade through in case there would be something useful in a thread?
If you track back to #281 you will notice that this thread was derailed (like so many others) by the demented Ohioan Troll whose entire object in life seems to cause train-wrecks in this Forum.
I apologize for my part but this thread lost any useful meaning some time ago. I simply countered Ramon’s bashing of a system that he uses because he made ‘credibility’ such an important topic earlier in this thread. While some of Ramon’s posts may be helpful, Randall should appreciate the lack of credibility others present in their responses to his issue. This thread was about color on the web; not another soapbox for platform militants.
Am thinking of buying for now. Ok, so not a Mac Pro but also not $4k. Will this run CS4 and is the video card ok or do I need one that has been flashed?
Any other thoughts on this system for running PS4 and all?
Ann might be able to answer the video card question better on this unit since she actually bought a flashed card for her G5. Have you looked around for a used MacPro? You might find a good deal on that too and not have to upgrade quite so soon.
One would need more information than provided by that Craig’s list offer or the links in JM’s post, in order to determine the exact kind and model of G5.
The one on Craig’s List we know is not one of the best ones as it can only be upgraded to 4 GB of RAM. The video card is probably underpowered and can only be upgraded through a mutant flashed card, as it has an AGP 8x slot.
Look for a G5 built in late 2005, which can be upgraded to 16 GB and has PCI Express sots, so you have a wider choice of video cards to choose from.
If you can obtain the serial number of the machine, you can input that S/N on the Apple specs site and get the exact specs for that particular unit:
Thanks guys. Cindy, used Mac Pro’s are out there but generally are just under the cost of new, with additive options, like upgrades to the video card or extra storage or maybe 4GB of ram instead of 2.
I think I could swing this but don’t know if this is going to handle 64bit apps when they come out, like CS5?, or Snow Leopard, or whatever. If not, then ok but would like to know in advance…?!
But I think if I can get something like this and have a stable system for the remainder of my project, then I wouldn’t upgrade right away anyway. I would just keep a system like this and fulfill my requirements to get my project done.
That, or use the MLB and not really SFW or anything and just edit RAW to DNG and later, when I am complete with the photos, buy something then (about two years or more from now) and edit the DNGs to a useful output then.
I just know that tomorrow the MBP gets the new MLB and though things may get more stable, its not the answer.
If you are going to go that far, why not get a refurb from Apple. You wouldn’t have to worry about getting Apple Care for a year (or just before your year is up) but you would have to add memory.
My concern is that it appeared that you might have a few gaps in understanding CM on a Mac. Shouldn’t you figure that out first and not assume the problem is with your current Mac? I mean if it is user error, and it appeared to be, wouldn’t getting a new Mac just lead you down the same path you have been on?
I understand what you are saying here, but my CM knowledge has always been sound, at least on a PC. Learning when a Mac throws MonitorRGB at you when those instances don’t happen in a PC environment is part of the learning curve. I am doing all I can to convert from a PC environment to a mac.
But I give up trying to defend what I may or may not know or what I see on my MBP. The horse is beyond dead. I have buttons that don’t display all the way, color shifts with no setting changes and the same workflow, color boosts when working with the ACD after a few hours of the SAME workflow.
Anyway, I will look into a refurb. I just wanted to know if that particular Pro was just adding on a new set of problems, and as JM so kindly pointed out, the card is not on the list.
I don’t think the first Craig’s List machine would be a very satisfactory purchase at that price:
It has only a single low-capacity HD; 1.5 GB RAM; and a 9600 video card which doesn’t support OpenGL so you would have to spend additional money for two high capacity HDs, additional RAM and a mutant flashed-for-Mac NVidea 7800 GT video card.
It may be able to take more RAM than the seller has stated because you can get 2GB RAM sticks that may be compatible with that machine.
You probably shouldn’t offer more than about $750 for that machine. _______ The second machine looks like a much better bet and it is still under Apple Care Warranty. I would be inclined to put in an offer for it you might be able to get it for $1500 in the present economic climate.
You will probably want to install a second HD and the 7300 graphics card is apparently inclined to be flakey with CS4 Open GL so you may find that you want to replace it.
If you do need to upgrade hardware, you might want to check-out OWC (other World Computing). I have used them and have found them to be totally reliable.
Yep. I think you could beat the pants off the second listing for $2800 (new from Apple store). You’ll need to pump $300 in the second post to get it running as a workstation (HDD + vid card). Maybe it’s just some wicked propaganda and forum myth, but I wouldn’t buy a used machine anymore for CS4. Wow. Agree on OWC.
Except that that particular "used machine" has apparently been little-used; is within driving distance so that Randal can see exactly what he is buying; and has two years of Apple Care still to run.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
