Photoshop’s use of monitor profile

PN
Posted By
Paul N
Jun 18, 2005
Views
782
Replies
35
Status
Closed
Just getting up to speed with color managed workflows, I read some interesting stuff such as the articles by Norman Koren and thought I understood… but I don’t: what I see on the screen is totally unexpected.

The setup is the following:
– Photoshop CS working color space set to sRGB
– Images are sRGB (confirmed in statusbar of PS)
– Monitor calibrated using Spyder; ColorVision LUT loader runs at system startup

My assumptions are the following:
– Since picture color space and PS working space are identical, image RGB values need no recalculation when image is opened in PS
– Monitor profile works system-wide (video card LUT) so PS does not have to care about it.
– When I open an image in a *non color managed* app such as Irfanview, essentially the same takes place: RGB values are sent to the video card unchanged and the color correction is done via the LUT
– Conclusion: colors should look identical on screen in PS and Irfanview

To my big surprise, the images in PS and Irfan look *different*: the colors in PS are more saturated and dark grays are darker.

The article by Norman Koren says that PS is using the *default monitor profile*. For what purpose does PS use the monitor profile????? Clearly there must be something wrong with my reasoning. The move to a color managed workflow only makes sense if you understand what’s going on so I’m eager to know.

Any help to clarify this issue would be greatly appreciated. Paul

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

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!

BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 19, 2005
Paul N writes …

My assumptions are the following:
– Since picture color space and PS working space are identical, image
RGB values need no recalculation when image is opened in PS

No, there’s an on-the-fly modification for display purposes only using the monitor ICC file so you see the on-screen image colors as accurately as possible, based on what was measured by your Spyder during characterization.

When I open an image in a *non color managed* app such as Irfanview, essentially the same takes place: RGB values are sent to the video card unchanged and the color correction is done via the LUT
Conclusion: colors should look identical on screen in PS and Irfanview

No, the non-color managed apps don’t use the monitor ICC file so the colors are different, as expected.

When you ran the Sypder software you first set black and white points and white balance, which is the "calibration" step, and all programs take advantage of this. Then the cal software displays colors of known values on the screen and the puck measures them and eventually the ICC profile is generated which changes the displayed colors to match the known values, as closely as possible (the monitor ICC file is actually a very tiny matrix). This is the "characterization" step. Color managed programs use this ICC profile, non-color managed programs don’t.

You can see what your file *should* look like in a non-color managed program by temporarily ignoring the monitor profile, which is done with View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB. Typically if there is a very large difference between views it often means the profile is not very accurate, I’ve found. You should see saturated colors changing if you toggle this on/off (cntrl-y) but nothing earth-shaking for most colors, at least on my monitors.

Bill
PN
Paul N
Jun 19, 2005
Thanks Bill, the ‘Monitor RGB proof’ setting indeed results in the same colors as I see in IrfanView.

Your answer raises new questions, see below.

Paul

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
Paul N writes …
[…]
When you ran the Sypder software you first set black and white points and white balance, which is the "calibration" step, and all programs take advantage of this. Then the cal software displays colors of known values on the screen and the puck measures them and eventually the ICC profile is generated which changes the displayed colors to match the known values, as closely as possible (the monitor ICC file is actually a very tiny matrix). This is the "characterization" step. Color managed programs use this ICC profile, non-color managed programs don’t.

The way you explain it, the cal step would not be recorded in the ICC file and would be a manual step (tweaking the monitor’s controls). Yet, the LUT downloader *does* use the ICC file.

On my Dell 510m laptop, the LUT step makes a huge difference, accounts for about 95% of the correction; The main effect is removal of strong blue cast probably due to a very high color temp (9000K?). The Intel control panel provides no manual control over this. Maybe the Colorvision startup app does change the white point? Is this a software controllable parameter in video cards?

Is it correct to regard the calibration as a ‘coarse tuning’ and the characterization as ‘fine tuning’, in other words is this 2-step process a technical issue (video LUT not able to implement the fine tuning) or is it more fundamental than this?

Tags contained in the ICM file generated by Spider:
– desc, cprt
– wtpt
– xyz values of rgb colorants
– gamma curves for rgb, all 2.199
– vcgt private tag
– tcpt private tag

Any web pointer or other reference greatly appreciated!
______________________________________________________
Y
yesnno
Jun 19, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
Paul N writes …

My assumptions are the following:
– Since picture color space and PS working space are identical, image
RGB values need no recalculation when image is opened in PS

No, there’s an on-the-fly modification for display purposes only using the monitor ICC file so you see the on-screen image colors as accurately as possible, based on what was measured by your Spyder during characterization.

When I open an image in a *non color managed* app such as Irfanview, essentially the same takes place: RGB values are sent to the video card unchanged and the color correction is done via the LUT
Conclusion: colors should look identical on screen in PS and Irfanview

No, the non-color managed apps don’t use the monitor ICC file so the colors are different, as expected.

When you ran the Sypder software you first set black and white points and white balance, which is the "calibration" step, and all programs take advantage of this. Then the cal software displays colors of known values on the screen and the puck measures them and eventually the ICC profile is generated which changes the displayed colors to match the known values, as closely as possible (the monitor ICC file is actually a very tiny matrix). This is the "characterization" step. Color managed programs use this ICC profile, non-color managed programs don’t.

You can see what your file *should* look like in a non-color managed program by temporarily ignoring the monitor profile, which is done with View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB. Typically if there is a very large difference between views it often means the profile is not very accurate, I’ve found. You should see saturated colors changing if you toggle this on/off (cntrl-y) but nothing earth-shaking for most colors, at least on my monitors.

The OS and the video card must play some role in using a monitor’s ICC profiles. What are they? I know how to select a monitor profile as default in WinXP, but that’s about it. What else is involved in OS?

Is choosing a video card important for color management and using ICC profiles? For example, using the same profile, will the displays look the same on the same monitor for different (but comparable quality) video cards?
N
nomail
Jun 19, 2005
Paul N wrote:

When you ran the Sypder software you first set black and white points and white balance, which is the "calibration" step, and all programs take advantage of this. Then the cal software displays colors of known values on the screen and the puck measures them and eventually the ICC profile is generated which changes the displayed colors to match the known values, as closely as possible (the monitor ICC file is actually a very tiny matrix). This is the "characterization" step. Color managed programs use this ICC profile, non-color managed programs don’t.

The way you explain it, the cal step would not be recorded in the ICC file and would be a manual step (tweaking the monitor’s controls). Yet, the LUT downloader *does* use the ICC file.

No, it uses a Color LookUp Table (CLUT). That is not the same as an icc profile. You could set the monitor to another ICC profile manually, but that does not change anything you see happening on startup.

On my Dell 510m laptop, the LUT step makes a huge difference, accounts for about 95% of the correction; The main effect is removal of strong blue cast probably due to a very high color temp (9000K?). The Intel control panel provides no manual control over this. Maybe the Colorvision startup app does change the white point? Is this a software controllable parameter in video cards?

Is it correct to regard the calibration as a ‘coarse tuning’ and the characterization as ‘fine tuning’, in other words is this 2-step process a technical issue (video LUT not able to implement the fine tuning) or is it more fundamental than this?

No, that is not correct. It’s two entirely different things. Calibration is setting the monitor to the best possible settings. Using a profile is trying to compensate for physical differences that exist between different devices (different monitors, monitor and printer), to make the colors look as similar as possible on those devices (of course within the limits of those devices).

Let me illustrate it with a practical example. Suppose your monitor isn’t too good at displaying very saturated yellow colors, but your printer can print them very well because it uses pure yellow ink. Without using profiles, your prints will have much more yellow saturation than you thought they would have when you previewed them on screen. Using your monitor profile, your computer can compensate for this by increasing the yellow saturation when the image is sent to the monitor, so it looks more like the print (within the limits of the monitor. Colors that cannot be displayed, still cannot be displayed). Likewise, it can desaturate the yellows a bit when sending the image to the printer. As a result, the print and the preview on screen will match much better. That is what profiles are for.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
J
Jim
Jun 19, 2005
wrote in message
Is choosing a video card important for color management and using ICC profiles? For example, using the same profile, will the displays look the same on the same monitor for different (but comparable quality) video cards?
Not necessarily or even usually. The profile is specific to that particular monitor and that particular card. The CRT monitors wear out hence even if the factory profile is "close enough" when you first install the monitor, it isn’t "close enough" after some time has passed. Jim
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 19, 2005
The OS and the video card must play some role in using a monitor’s ICC profiles. What are they?

The OS has to support ICC profiles and the ICC workflow or it can’t happen … earlier versions of Windows didn’t offer ICC support for example, which was a real plus for Apple in the digital market. I *think* Windows 95 offered ICM 1.0 support and maybe with 98 they came out with ICM 2.0 support, which was not too far behind what Apple is doing. In typical Windows fashion they declared this ‘good enough’ and haven’t improved it much if any since. I remember that an OS like NT didn’t support this because you couldn’t write to the video card (or something like that), for example.

In Photoshop you can choose to use either the Adobe(ACE) conversion engine or the Windows ICM option, which you can access in the Color Settings (advanced – Conversion options) window.

As for the video card, you would have to use a very old or very cheap one with few programmable registers to miss out on the ICC stuff. Any decent newer card should be fine.

Is choosing a video card important for color management and using ICC profiles?

I don’t think so (I’m no expert on video cards though), so long as it’s fairly recent.

using the same profile, will the displays look the same on the same monitor for different (but comparable quality) video cards?

You wouldn’t use the same profile for different video cards but if you generate one specific for that card then I’d expect the monitor to look the same.

A good source of info on color management is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting.

Bill
PN
Paul N
Jun 19, 2005
"Jim" wrote in message
wrote in message
Is choosing a video card important for color management and using ICC profiles? For example, using the same profile, will the displays look the same on the same monitor for different (but comparable quality) video cards?
Not necessarily or even usually. The profile is specific to that particular
monitor and that particular card. The CRT monitors wear out hence even if the factory profile is "close enough" when you first install the monitor, it
isn’t "close enough" after some time has passed. Jim
I was asking myself the same questions as yesnno and I’m still puzzled about the answers.

The video card clearly plays a role, since the role of the the LUT downloader (Adobe Gamma loader, ColorVision startup) is precisely to set up the video card to perform *some* corrections.

But: I suspect that you can swap video cards (not monitors!) without seeing any difference: these LUT downloaders seem to work with all but very old cards. So there must be a standard API in Windows that these programs can speak to, regardless of the video card model.

As far as I know, Windows itself plays no active role in color mgmt, it just allows you to specify a default profile. This profile is then used by the LUT downloader, and apparently by color managing apps too (see next paragraph).

From my experiments with ICM files created using the Spyder cal tool it appears that the monitor ICM file is used by:

– the LUT downloader. Proof: use a tool such as Colorvision ProfileChooser, change profile and see the *whole screen* change color.
– Photoshop & other color managing apps. Proof: Just bring up the same sRGB file in both a managing and nonmanaging app and you see that the color managed app shows different colors (although not by much).

I’s not clear to me where to draw the line between calibration and characterization, it looks somewhat arbitrary.

It’s also not clear if Adobe Gamma loader and other LUT loaders ‘misuse’ the ICM file to store their proprietary tables, in other words: is this LUT info fundamentally part of the profile or is it just used by LUT loaders because it’s a convenient place? Is the ICM file more than a profile?

It would be interesting to know what the minimum spec is that all video cards are supposed to implement (regarding color mgmt). It looks like it’s just 3 tables (one for r/g/b) with 256 entries that convert an incoming intensity value to a ‘corrected’ value that is sent to the monitor.

But: 3 one-dimensional tables are not enough to allow mapping any RGB triple to another triple. To solve this correctly you need a big 3-dimensional table (256^3 or millions of entries). Yet an ICC file is small. Interpolation?

Many questions and no clear image of how all these pieces of the puzzle fit together………
___________________________________________________________
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 19, 2005
Paul N writes …

I’s not clear to me where to draw the line between calibration and characterization, it looks somewhat arbitrary.

No, it’s not arbitrary. When you run the Spyder software you first adjust the brightness and contrast controls to get the right black point and luminance, then you adjust the separate RGB guns to get the right custom white point. At this stage the monitor is "calibrated", meaning it is in a known good state and will remain there so long as these controls aren’t changed (or until the monitor drifts, which could be as soon as two weeks).

In this context "characterization" means the software displays colors of known values on the screen and the puck measures them to see if there are differences between what the color *should* look like (per the numbers) vs what the colors actually look like as recorded by the puck. Once all these colors are measured the software takes all the differences into account and creates the ICC monitor profile, which tries to translate the color RGB values on the fly so what you see on screen (taking into account the unique properties of your monitor) look as close as possible to what is represented by the RGB triplets.

Any web pointer or other reference greatly appreciated!

This is a good intro to what’s going on with the ‘translations’ (but not to the LUT level) …
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html … the same guy is co-author of "Real World Color Management", which is highly recommended.

For background on the ICC flow the main site is www.color.org which is the official site of the ICC (International Color Consortium), but it’s hard to read.

Many questions and no clear image of how all these pieces of the puzzle fit together.

I wouldn’t worry too much about what’s going on at the register level of the video card … what’s important is understanding that color managed apps ‘translate’ colors between different devices. After a while you find that there are a lot of inaccurate ICC profiles out there (especially printer profiles) and what’s important is generating or finding good, accurate profiles and knowing when you have a bad one.

Bill
PN
Paul N
Jun 19, 2005
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
[…]
I wouldn’t worry too much about what’s going on at the register level of the video card … what’s important is understanding that color managed apps ‘translate’ colors between different devices. After a while you find that there are a lot of inaccurate ICC profiles out there (especially printer profiles) and what’s important is generating or finding good, accurate profiles and knowing when you have a bad one.

Actually the ‘register level’ is not my concern. What *does* concern me is that -apparently- part of the color correction for display is done in hardware and part in software.

Which means that non color managed apps show ‘partly corrected’ images. A good thing in itself. But what part?? 90%? 50%? Unpredictable? Note: let’s suppose the images are sRGB; using large color spaces with non color managed apps is hopeless.

You may argue that one shouldn’t use non color managed apps in a color managed workflow. But for many amateur photographers like me, there are lots of useful apps out there that are not color managed. So we have to live with ‘partially corrected’ color; knowing what ‘partially’ means would IMHO be a big help.

I admit, in an ideal world where all apps would be color managed, I woudn’t care how it’s done. But unfortunately this ideal seems a long way off…
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 19, 2005
Paul N writes …

Which means that non color managed apps show ‘partly corrected’ images. A good thing in itself. But what part?? 90%? 50%? Unpredictable?

Think about it like this … your monitor is probably set up to deliver 9300 Kelvin color temp with all 3 color guns at or near full strength. You are probably set up for say 6500K instead, which means you have to back off the blue and green guns a bit when you set the custom white point with the Sypder software. For example, on a monitor I just checked for 6500K R=100, G=85, B=80 … this gives you the correct white point for this monitor (and I think this is the info that gets loaded into the LUT when the loader runs at start-up, though I’m not sure of that). This is for white … as you display other colors you drive the guns with less strength (lower voltage) but they are not linear now, ie, red is on a 0-100 scale, blue 0-80 scale etc, plus any other non-linearities built in due to changes in phosophors, etc over time.

So part of what the ICC profile does is correct for the non-linearities (probably not the right word but you get the drift). In other words, once you’ve set the white and black points with the calibration then in an ideal world with perfect ‘linearity’ on all three guns and phosphors you wouldn’t see much if any difference between colors displayed in a color managed app vs a non-color managed app, but in the real world the differences are measured by the puck and (hopefully) compensated for with the monitor’s ICC profile.

So to your question "But what part?? 90%? 50%? Unpredictable?" I would say it depends on how much your particular monitor varies from linear (and the accuracy of your profile). You can check the variation with a test target like this one http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/colors.jpg (feel free to download it or make your own) … toggling ‘monitor profile’ (ie, ignore the ICC profile) on/off (ctrl-y) on my monitor shows that the bottom 3 rows are largely unchanged and the top two rows with saturated colors change mostly in the reds, yellows and oranges, with blues and greens less affected. Your monitor may show something different, but at least you’ll know which colors are most susceptible to color shifts as you move between apps.

You may argue that one shouldn’t use non color managed apps in a color managed workflow.

I would just say that you shouldn’t make color edits in a non-color managed app if you have a good color managed app like Photoshop, regardless of what else you use the non-color managed programs for. You should expect surprises in the colors that show changes in a pattern like the one I linked to.

Bill
N
nomail
Jun 19, 2005
Paul N wrote:

You may argue that one shouldn’t use non color managed apps in a color managed workflow. But for many amateur photographers like me, there are lots of useful apps out there that are not color managed. So we have to live with ‘partially corrected’ color; knowing what ‘partially’ means would IMHO be a big help.

You’d need to have a program that can graphically display color profiles. Then you can compare the color space (i.e. the profile) of your monitor to sRGB color space. The difference between the two is the difference you’ll get with non-color managed applications.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
MR
Mike Russell
Jun 20, 2005
"Paul N" wrote in message
news:3Ljte.285914
Actually the ‘register level’ is not my concern. What *does* concern me is that -apparently- part of the color correction for display is done in hardware and part in software.

The "other part is indeed software dependent, and it consists of recognizing an image’s embedded profile, and using that profile, together with the display profile, to display the image colors correctly.

If an application honors embedded profiles, it is called "color aware". For example, a web browser could recognize an embedded profile in a downloaded jpeg, and display those colors correctly. If this were done universally, the old phenomenon of PC images looking darker on a Mac – or Mac images looking to light on a PC – would be solved.

The vast majority of browsers don’t do this, and for very good reasons that might be an interesting topic for another thread.


Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
Y
yesnno
Jun 20, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
The OS and the video card must play some role in using a monitor’s ICC profiles. What are they?

The OS has to support ICC profiles and the ICC workflow or it can’t happen … earlier versions of Windows didn’t offer ICC support for example, which was a real plus for Apple in the digital market. I *think* Windows 95 offered ICM 1.0 support and maybe with 98 they came out with ICM 2.0 support, which was not too far behind what Apple is doing. In typical Windows fashion they declared this ‘good enough’ and haven’t improved it much if any since. I remember that an OS like NT didn’t support this because you couldn’t write to the video card (or something like that), for example.

In Photoshop you can choose to use either the Adobe(ACE) conversion engine or the Windows ICM option, which you can access in the Color Settings (advanced – Conversion options) window.

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

As for the video card, you would have to use a very old or very cheap one with few programmable registers to miss out on the ICC stuff. Any decent newer card should be fine.

Is choosing a video card important for color management and using ICC profiles?

I don’t think so (I’m no expert on video cards though), so long as it’s fairly recent.

using the same profile, will the displays look the same on the same monitor for different (but comparable quality) video cards?

You wouldn’t use the same profile for different video cards but if you generate one specific for that card then I’d expect the monitor to look the same.

I should have stated that on the same monitor after switch a video card and generating a new profile, will the displays look the same. I think your answer is yes.

A good source of info on color management is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting.

Bill
Y
yesnno
Jun 20, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
Paul N writes …

Many questions and no clear image of how all these pieces of the puzzle fit together.

I wouldn’t worry too much about what’s going on at the register level of the video card … what’s important is understanding that color managed apps ‘translate’ colors between different devices.

I agree completely. Given the choice, most of us would prefer spending our time shooting and printing over looking under the hood. But color management at this stage is neither push button simple, nor is the ROI from a set of good hw/sw in line with that from a good DSLR or a good monitor.

After a
while you find that there are a lot of inaccurate ICC profiles out there (especially printer profiles) and what’s important is generating or finding good, accurate profiles and knowing when you have a bad one.

How true. The sad part is that many vendors can charge for bad profiles and get away with it. Profile vendors will talk about their equipment, etc. but will not educate their customers on how to evaluate their profiles and why theirs are better. Even the good vendors won’t do it, leading me to believe that evaluating profiles is not as simple as it sounds. The customer can evaluate a profile by looking at the prints, AFTER spending the money. If he finds the prints unsatisfactory, there is no way for him to challenge the vendor. What we need is an education and tools on how to evaluate profiles, followed by a ranking of the profile vendors.

You won’t happen to know of a good profile vendor, would you?
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 20, 2005
Johan W. Elzenga writes …

You’d need to have a program that can graphically display color profiles.

I have two programs to do this, including Chromix Color Think …

Then you can compare the color space (i.e. the profile) of your monitor to sRGB color space. The difference between the two is the difference you’ll get with non-color managed applications.

It’s not practical to do this though … first the programs I’ve used do the 3D graphs in LAB instead of RGB and it’s very tough to do the translation between color modes in your head. Second, even if the contours of the spheres of the graphed profiles were an exact match it still wouldn’t mean the colors inside the spheres map directly one-to-one for several reasons, the most obvious being that an abstract non-device specific ‘working space’ like sRGB is by definition perfectly gray balanced while a device specific profile for something like a monitor is almost never gray balanced (there are other reasons but this is the most obvious).

Bill
N
nomail
Jun 20, 2005
wrote:

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

The major difference is that color management is done by the system (via ColorSync) on a Mac. That means that ANY application will use the monitor profile, because ColorSync will take care that. I don’t see any reason why that would change on an Intel based Mac.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
N
nomail
Jun 20, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:

You’d need to have a program that can graphically display color profiles.

I have two programs to do this, including Chromix Color Think …
Then you can compare the color space (i.e. the profile) of your monitor to sRGB color space. The difference between the two is the difference you’ll get with non-color managed applications.

It’s not practical to do this though … first the programs I’ve used do the 3D graphs in LAB instead of RGB and it’s very tough to do the translation between color modes in your head. Second, even if the contours of the spheres of the graphed profiles were an exact match it still wouldn’t mean the colors inside the spheres map directly one-to-one for several reasons, the most obvious being that an abstract non-device specific ‘working space’ like sRGB is by definition perfectly gray balanced while a device specific profile for something like a monitor is almost never gray balanced (there are other reasons but this is the most obvious).

Of course. But the graphs will tell you where the biggest differences are. I use a Macintosh, so I have ColorSync Utility for this (which does a 2D graph in RGB) and it certainly gives you an idea. But I agree; it’s not much more than an idea.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
PN
Paul N
Jun 20, 2005
I would like to thank Bill and all other contributors for sharing your insights on this complex issue. The principle is not so difficult to grasp in theory but the implementation on Windows seems to be a mess of bolted-on bits & pieces, resulting in all kinds of behaviors that are not well documented. A show stopper for those who make their first steps into color management.

Maybe that’s a reason why graphical art people stick to their Macs? On the Mac it seems to be implemented like it should. What’s holding Bill G to do the same?

Paul
H
Hecate
Jun 21, 2005
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, wrote:

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

Yes. No, it’ll just work more slowly 😉



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Jun 21, 2005
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:51:42 +0200, "Paul N"
wrote:

I would like to thank Bill and all other contributors for sharing your insights on this complex issue. The principle is not so difficult to grasp in theory but the implementation on Windows seems to be a mess of bolted-on bits & pieces, resulting in all kinds of behaviors that are not well documented. A show stopper for those who make their first steps into color management.

I have never had any problem with it. I prefer that Windows doesn’t stick it’s nose into my colour management system.

Maybe that’s a reason why graphical art people stick to their Macs? On the Mac it seems to be implemented like it should. What’s holding Bill G to do the same?
Maybe ten years ago. Nowadays I come across far more graphics PCs than graphics Macs.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
J
johnboy
Jun 21, 2005
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, wrote:

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

Yes. No, it’ll just work more slowly 😉

Hec, you are so cloistered! It does not become you. I have both and the Mac is not significantly faster, and definitely not cost-effectively faster.
N
nomail
Jun 21, 2005
Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, wrote:

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

Yes. No, it’ll just work more slowly 😉

Sigh. Here we go again…


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
AM
Andrew Morton
Jun 21, 2005
"Paul N" wrote
But: I suspect that you can swap video cards (not monitors!) without seeing any difference…

Not necessarily: there will be slight differences in the hardware, even between two cards consecutively off the production line, due to manufacturing tolerances.

Andrew
H
Hecate
Jun 21, 2005
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:14:41 -0500, "johnboy" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, wrote:

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

Yes. No, it’ll just work more slowly 😉

Hec, you are so cloistered! It does not become you. I have both and the Mac is not significantly faster, and definitely not cost-effectively faster.
I’ve used Macs, and found them faster then Intel based systems. However, I now use AMD based systems and they are definitely cost-effectively faster. If it wasn’t for the system price, the Mac would be too. If I had to place them in order, then I’d go AMD, Mac, Intel. (unless I was buying a laptop in which case I’d want a Pentium M Centrino system or a PowerBook G5).



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Jun 21, 2005
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:12:22 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:20:34 GMT, wrote:

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

Yes. No, it’ll just work more slowly 😉

Sigh. Here we go again…

If someone asks the question…

You know both AMD based computers and Mac G5s are faster and more efficient than anything Intel produces for a desktop.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
N
nomail
Jun 22, 2005
Hecate wrote:

There was a time many would recommend using a Mac over a PC for "serious" graphics work. Are those days all but gone? On a Mac with Intel chips (soon), will the user see any difference in how colors are handled?

Yes. No, it’ll just work more slowly 😉

Sigh. Here we go again…

If someone asks the question…

You know both AMD based computers and Mac G5s are faster and more efficient than anything Intel produces for a desktop.

I know that Intel only produces chips and that right now the Mac G5 can hold its own against any Intel based PC. I have no idea what a future desktop Macintosh with an Intel chip will do. And I don’t believe you can predict that future either.

Besides, the question was NOT which system was faster or more cost effective. The question was twofold:

1. Do many still recommend the Mac for serious graphics work? Answer: Yes, many still do. YOU don’t have to agree, though.

2. Will the user see any difference in how colors are handled? Answer: No, because that is handled by the system (ColorSync) so it doesn’t depend on the chip. It’s no different in a Mac G4 or G5, but those are also different chips (and manufacturers).

So your ‘funny’ answer was the typical ‘PC vs Mac’ or ‘Canon vs Nikon’ reaction that is only meant to annoy ‘the other camp’. I wish you wouldn’t do that. There are enough flame wars as it is.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
H
Hecate
Jun 22, 2005
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:21:39 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

You know both AMD based computers and Mac G5s are faster and more efficient than anything Intel produces for a desktop.

I know that Intel only produces chips and that right now the Mac G5 can hold its own against any Intel based PC. I have no idea what a future desktop Macintosh with an Intel chip will do. And I don’t believe you can predict that future either.

Besides, the question was NOT which system was faster or more cost effective. The question was twofold:

1. Do many still recommend the Mac for serious graphics work? Answer: Yes, many still do. YOU don’t have to agree, though.
2. Will the user see any difference in how colors are handled? Answer: No, because that is handled by the system (ColorSync) so it doesn’t depend on the chip. It’s no different in a Mac G4 or G5, but those are also different chips (and manufacturers).
So your ‘funny’ answer was the typical ‘PC vs Mac’ or ‘Canon vs Nikon’ reaction that is only meant to annoy ‘the other camp’. I wish you wouldn’t do that. There are enough flame wars as it is.

As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as they don’t include DRM spy(hard)ware.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
JM
John McWilliams
Jun 22, 2005
Hecate wrote:
As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as they don’t include DRM spy(hard)ware.

Suspect all you want. If you have faith in your suspicions, shorting Intel stock and going long on AMD would be a smart move.

Good luck.


John McWilliams
N
nomail
Jun 23, 2005
Hecate wrote:

As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as they don’t include DRM spy(hard)ware.

It’s interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives. First Nikon, then Adobe and now Apple. Well, I have no desire to let the discussion go that way, in fact I have no desire for an ‘Apple vs anything else’ discussion at all. Just stop with the ‘funny’ remarks each time Apple is mentioned, and let’s go back using this forum for PHOTOSHOP related issues, PLEASE.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
H
Hecate
Jun 23, 2005
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:18:34 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as they don’t include DRM spy(hard)ware.

It’s interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives.

That’s because I don’t trust any major company as a matter of principle. That way I’m never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and it’s board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the way. That’s the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living in the real world.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
JM
John McWilliams
Jun 23, 2005
Hecate wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:18:34 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

As an aside, I suspect that the reason Apple are switching to Intel is DRM. All the Pentium D dual core chips contain a DRM module. FWIW, I think that will drive more people towards an AMD solution as long as they don’t include DRM spy(hard)ware.

It’s interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives.

That’s because I don’t trust any major company as a matter of principle. That way I’m never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and it’s board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the way.

Welcome to the 17th-21st Centuries! [YMMV; certainly there are third world exceptions abounding….]

Steamrollered is a colorful selection, but steamrollers tend to move slowly and in a straight line, so it’s easy to avoid them with only a modest bit of thought or planning.

That’s the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any
company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living in the real world.

That’s your conclusion based on your experience, but don’t tell us what the real world is or is not.


John McWilliams
N
nomail
Jun 24, 2005
Hecate wrote:

It’s interesting to see how you always suspect alterior motives.

That’s because I don’t trust any major company as a matter of principle. That way I’m never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and it’s board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the way. That’s the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living in the real world.

There is quite a distance between altruism and alterior motives. Most companies simply want satisfied customers, because those are the only ones who come back for more business. And more business = more money = happy shareholders. You do not get that by steamrolling over your customers (who then cease to be your customers).


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
H
Hecate
Jun 24, 2005
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:10:03 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Welcome to the 17th-21st Centuries! [YMMV; certainly there are third world exceptions abounding….]

Steamrollered is a colorful selection, but steamrollers tend to move slowly and in a straight line, so it’s easy to avoid them with only a modest bit of thought or planning.

That’s the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any
company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living in the real world.

That’s your conclusion based on your experience, but don’t tell us what the real world is or is not.

If you think companies operate for your benefit that you’re living in a dream world.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Jun 24, 2005
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:36:06 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

That’s because I don’t trust any major company as a matter of principle. That way I’m never disappointed in them, and o0nce in a blue moon they surprise me. What people tend to forget is that these companies are not run for the benefit of users, They are run for the benefit of profit and you, I or anyone else, except the company and it’s board of directors, will just get steamrollered if we get in the way. That’s the way capitalism works and anyone who thinks that any company will display even the slightest hint of altruism is not living in the real world.

There is quite a distance between altruism and alterior motives. Most companies simply want satisfied customers, because those are the only ones who come back for more business. And more business = more money = happy shareholders. You do not get that by steamrolling over your customers (who then cease to be your customers).

Yes, they want repeat customers. I wouldn’t describe what they are doing as "ulterior" motives however. If you understand capitalism – make money at all costs regardless of any collateral damage, then suspecting any company of doing the worst it can get away with comes naturally. And that’s what they will do – if they can get away with it they will. If the even think they can get away with it, they’ll try and see if the can. Remember, there’s a "Sucker Born Every Minute."

The same conditions apply in any field you care to name. The days of Adam Smith and his fair market are long gone – when your supplier is a multinational who will base itself wherever the government is most compliant, consumers have hardly any leverage at all – to the extent that corporations can, literally, get away with murder (See Bhopal for example).



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
JM
John McWilliams
Jun 24, 2005
Hecate wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:10:03 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:
That’s your conclusion based on your experience, but don’t tell us what the real world is or is not.

If you think companies operate for your benefit that you’re living in a dream world.
You carry the art of deduction to new lows. Can’t imagine anyone but you deducing the above from what I said.


John McWilliams

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections