Option for using full monitor profile for real time display?

In article <zNGPb.12772$>, "Greg"
wrote:

Is there still no option in Photoshop to allow it to use the full monitor profile for real time
display, rather than the "simplified" version?

Never heard of real-time still, but do you mean ‘view actual pixels’? It’s been in PS forever.

"jjs" wrote in message

In article <zNGPb.12772$>, "Greg"
wrote:

Is there still no option in Photoshop to allow it to use the full

monitor

profile for real time
display, rather than the "simplified" version?

Never heard of real-time still,

What I meant by that is that when Photoshop displays images normally, it uses a simplified version
of the monitor profile, and the reason it does this is so that screen updates can be done faster. To actually get Photoshop to show you *exactly* how the image should appear for your monitor profile, the image would need to be explicitly
converted from the image space to the monitor space. (to the best of my knowledge). Perhaps a soft proof does
use the full monitor profile though – not sure about that.

but do you mean ‘view actual pixels’? It’s
been in PS forever.

"View actual pixels" relates to image size only, I think. I.e, it displays the image pixel for pixel to the display, without any interpolation whatsoever. I don’t think it has anything to do with the monitor profile.

Thanks,
Greg.

Are you using Windows or a Mac?

Douglas
———————–
"Greg" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in message

In article <zNGPb.12772$>, "Greg"
wrote:

Is there still no option in Photoshop to allow it to use the full

monitor

profile for real time
display, rather than the "simplified" version?

Never heard of real-time still,

What I meant by that is that when Photoshop displays images normally, it uses a simplified version
of the monitor profile, and the reason it does this is so that screen updates can be done faster. To actually get Photoshop to show you

*exactly*

how the image should appear for your monitor profile, the image would need to be explicitly
converted from the image space to the monitor space. (to the best of my knowledge). Perhaps a soft proof does
use the full monitor profile though – not sure about that.

but do you mean ‘view actual pixels’? It’s
been in PS forever.

"View actual pixels" relates to image size only, I think. I.e, it displays the image pixel for pixel to the display, without any interpolation whatsoever. I don’t think it has anything to do with the monitor profile.
Thanks,
Greg.

Windows (XP)

"The Yowie" wrote in message

Are you using Windows or a Mac?

Douglas

Hang on I think I’ve got this all wrong. Am I thinking of the *working* space? Perhaps Photoshop only uses
a simplified version of the monitor profile when the monitor profile is selected for
use as a working space?

Greg.

"Greg" wrote in message

What I meant by that is that when Photoshop displays images normally, it uses a simplified version
of the monitor profile, and the reason it does this is so that screen updates can be done faster. To actually get Photoshop to show you

*exactly*

how the image should appear for your monitor profile, the image would need to be explicitly
converted from the image space to the monitor space. (to the best of my knowledge).

According to the couple of Adobe engineers that frequent this and other PS newsgroups, the difference between the "on-the-fly" conversion and an actual "convert to profile" are immaterial when viewed on screen. If you increase view to, say, 500%, you can see slight differences, but you’ll never notice it when viewed at normal magnifications. At Chris Cox’s suggestion, I’ve tried it ~ give it a shot for yourself.

In any event, "exactly" is a term that is irrelevant. If you want "exact", stick to math class because it doesn’t exist in reality. No profile is perfect to begin with, and profiled devices go in and out of calibration every second they are plugged in and turned on. What everyone who uses this stuff a lot, including me, looks for is "close enough."

But, I gotta ask you, why would you want to convert to your monitor profile in the first place? Given that there is, practically speaking, zero perceptual accuracy difference, why would you want to slam your file and clip its gamut? That’s the beauty of on-the-fly rendering – you leave the file untouched.

Perhaps a soft proof does
use the full monitor profile though – not sure about that.

Nope, same thing, on-the-fly screen rendering. And, with good profiles, it’s "close enough" for me and others.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

"Flycaster" wrote in message

But, I gotta ask you, why would you want to convert to your monitor

profile

in the first place? Given that there is, practically speaking, zero perceptual accuracy difference, why would you want to slam your file and clip its gamut? That’s the beauty of on-the-fly rendering – you leave the file untouched.

Simply so I can see exactly how the image is supposed to look on my monitor. ;^)

Perhaps a soft proof does
use the full monitor profile though – not sure about that.

Nope, same thing, on-the-fly screen rendering. And, with good profiles, it’s "close enough" for me and others.

Ok, thanks for all the info – much appreciated.

Greg.

I wrote:

But, I gotta ask you, why would you want to convert to your monitor

profile

in the first place? Given that there is, practically speaking, zero perceptual accuracy difference, why would you want to slam your file and clip its gamut? That’s the beauty of on-the-fly rendering – you leave

the

file untouched.

Simply so I can see exactly how the image is supposed to look on my

monitor.

;^)

Just to make myself totally clear about this, the conversion would merely be for
previewing purposes. I certainly do not, and did not, mean for the conversion
to be permanent. I agree that such a conversion would in most cases be the wrong thing to do. (I archive my transparency scans in Ekta Space – archiving
them in my monitor space would be laughable)

Greg.

"Greg" wrote in message

I wrote:

But, I gotta ask you, why would you want to convert to your monitor

profile

in the first place? Given that there is, practically speaking, zero perceptual accuracy difference, why would you want to slam your file

and

clip its gamut? That’s the beauty of on-the-fly rendering – you leave

the

file untouched.

Simply so I can see exactly how the image is supposed to look on my

monitor.

;^)

Just to make myself totally clear about this, the conversion would merely

be

for
previewing purposes. I certainly do not, and did not, mean for the conversion
to be permanent. I agree that such a conversion would in most cases be the wrong thing to do. (I archive my transparency scans in Ekta Space – archiving
them in my monitor space would be laughable)

Yeah, I understood that. Well, if you want, you can always duplicate the file and convert it ~ but it will look the same since the on-the-fly rendering is very accurate. Once again, give it a shot and see for yourself instead of wondering. It’ll only take a few seconds and will demystify this for you.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

"Flycaster" wrote in message

Yeah, I understood that. Well, if you want, you can always duplicate the file and convert it ~ but it will look the same since the on-the-fly rendering is very accurate. Once again, give it a shot and see for

yourself

instead of wondering. It’ll only take a few seconds and will demystify

this

for you.

I haven’t done the test yet, but I have no trouble believing that the on-the-fly conversion
will be very good. I won’t be at all surprised if I can’t notice the slightest difference.
However, I won’t have complete confidence there won’t be at least a slight difference
in some situations, which I can’t easily predict, and test for. My point is that with the copious
amounts of processing power we now have, just maybe it’s time that Photoshop have the
*option* for a more accurate on the fly conversion.

I have access to a relatively old monitor, which has quite a marked red cast in the dark midtones,
when uncorrected by a gamma correction lookup table. I will accurately profile the monitor
*without* the LUT correction curves loaded into the graphics card, and then see how well
Photoshop does with it’s on the fly conversions. This may actually show a difference.
The software I’ll use for this is the (beta) Little CMS profiler, which is capable of simply
*profiling* monitor, without forcing the user to calibrate it. The measuring device is the Eye One
Display monitor puck.

Greg.

"Greg" wrote in message

"Flycaster" wrote in message

Yeah, I understood that. Well, if you want, you can always duplicate

the

file and convert it ~ but it will look the same since the on-the-fly rendering is very accurate. Once again, give it a shot and see for

yourself

instead of wondering. It’ll only take a few seconds and will demystify

this

for you.

I haven’t done the test yet, but I have no trouble believing that the on-the-fly conversion
will be very good. I won’t be at all surprised if I can’t notice the slightest difference.
However, I won’t have complete confidence there won’t be at least a slight difference
in some situations, which I can’t easily predict, and test for. My point

is

that with the copious
amounts of processing power we now have, just maybe it’s time that

Photoshop

have the
*option* for a more accurate on the fly conversion.

I have access to a relatively old monitor, which has quite a marked red

cast

in the dark midtones,
when uncorrected by a gamma correction lookup table. I will accurately profile the monitor
*without* the LUT correction curves loaded into the graphics card, and

then

see how well
Photoshop does with it’s on the fly conversions. This may actually show a difference.
The software I’ll use for this is the (beta) Little CMS profiler, which is capable of simply
*profiling* monitor, without forcing the user to calibrate it. The measuring device is the Eye One
Display monitor puck.

Have at it.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

For a greyscale, Photoshop 7.01 appears to be displaying it with 100% accuracy, on the fly. I.e, with a greyscale image assigned sRGB, it appears exactly the same as it does after I convert a duplicate of this image to the monitor profile, using relative intent.
(I’m not going to bother testing non greyscale images, unless someone thinks it really will show a difference). The profile
I’m using was created with a monitor which is out of calibration (non neutral greyscale). That is, the profile itself must be
used to display a neutral greyscale, because I am not using a display adaptor LUT. Photoshop is doing this just fine, and
if it is taking any short cuts, they’re just not resulting in any difference in pixel values whatsoever for this particular test
case.

There may be more of an issue with using the monitor profile as a working space, but even if there is, that’s something which
I really have no interest in whatsoever, and I’m not even going to test this.

Greg.
p.s I cheated a bit in this test – I didn’t have the out of calibration monitor with me, so I did in fact load a LUT, to *simulate* a monitor which is out of calibration. This hardware LUT is not used in Photoshop, and I so feel that the results of this
experiment are valid.

Note that what I *thought* might happen is that Photoshop would use an average
gamma value (or TRC curve – the monitor profile I created uses 1024 point TRCs, rather than
a single gamma value) from the monitor profile, instead of each individual curve. But this obviously isn’t the case.

I’m not going to bother zooming in by 500% etc – I’ll take your word for it that slight differences
can sometimes occur. This doesn’t concern me – the problem I was concerned about would have
had a far greater impact on image appearance.

So I agree that there seems to be no reason to change anything in Photoshop – it’s already good enough. ;^)

Greg.

Interesting. Small, but definite, differences do occur, but only in Photoshop 7.01.
The test I did before was with Photoshop CS, and it doesn’t show any differences.
Adobe have already taken my suggestion. ;^)

Greg.

Wrong. I had the CMM engine set to Microsoft in the main colour preferences settings – I had forgotten to reset this after
having done some other testing. Sorry.

Greg.

"Greg" wrote in message

Interesting. Small, but definite, differences do occur, but only in Photoshop 7.01.
The test I did before was with Photoshop CS, and it doesn’t show any differences.
Adobe have already taken my suggestion. ;^)

Greg.

Bah – it was 7.01 that I used for the original test, too – I should have known that I must have changed
something. 🙂

"Greg" wrote in message

Wrong. I had the CMM engine set to Microsoft in the main colour

preferences

settings – I had forgotten to reset this after
having done some other testing. Sorry.

Greg.

"Greg" wrote in message

Interesting. Small, but definite, differences do occur, but only in Photoshop 7.01.
The test I did before was with Photoshop CS, and it doesn’t show any differences.
Adobe have already taken my suggestion. ;^)

Greg.

"Unregistered" wrote in message

Just recently, after I really thought I had eventually understood all this color management stuff, I got confused by PS. I have a profiled monitor, everything looks fine under Windows (grey is really grey, exposure is right etc.) – that’s what a monitor profile is for. What I do not understand now is, why the same plain image with no embedded profile whatsoever, looks perfect outside Photoshop, but needs to be soft-proofed using the monitor profile inside PS (or, alternatively as you mentioned, needs to be converted to the monitor color space)… Why does PS seem to bypass the operating systems color management????

PS doesn’t "bypass" Windows color managment…Windows is simply not color managed. The difference you see demonstrates that point.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Just recently, after I really thought I had eventually understood al this color management stuff, I got confused by PS. I have a profile monitor, everything looks fine under Windows (grey is really grey exposure is right etc.) – that’s what a monitor profile is for. What I do not understand now is, why the same plain image with n embedded profile whatsoever, looks perfect outside Photoshop, but need to be soft-proofed using the monitor profile inside PS (or alternatively as you mentioned, needs to be converted to the monito color space)… Why does PS seem to bypass the operating systems colo management????

Any idea?
thanks
-D

Unregistered
———————————————————— ———– Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
———————————————————— ———– View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message35777.htm

One explanation for that behaviour is that you are importing the images into an unusual working space.
Check your RGB working space setting, and consider enabling "warn on missing profile", and "warn on
profile mismatch", etc. I suspect if you manually *assign* sRGB to your images in Photoshop, they’ll look
fine.

Greg.

"Unregistered" wrote in message

Flycaster wrote:

*"Unregistered" wrote in
message

PS doesn’t "bypass" Windows color managment…Windows is >simply not

color

managed. The difference you see demonstrates that point.

Well, colors and greys are perfect in Windows everywhere *outside* of Photoshop in every non-color managed application – that is why I select a monitor pofile in Windows’ display settings and calibration software (BasiCColor in my case)?

It is only Photoshop which seems to ignore this and I need to manually "sooft proof" using a monitor profile…
-DS

—–= Posted via webservertalk.com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.webservertalk.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
—–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—– *

Unregistered –
———————————————————— ———— Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
———————————————————— ———— View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message35777.html

Flycaster wrote:

*"Unregistered" wrote i
message

PS doesn’t "bypass" Windows color managment…Windows is >simply no

color

managed. The difference you see demonstrates that point.

Well, colors and greys are perfect in Windows everywhere *outside* o Photoshop in every non-color managed application – that is why select a monitor pofile in Windows’ display settings and calibratio software (BasiCColor in my case)?

It is only Photoshop which seems to ignore this and I need t manually "sooft proof" using a monitor profile…
-DS

—–= Posted via webservertalk.com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.webservertalk.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in th World!
—–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Unregistered
———————————————————— ———– Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
———————————————————— ———– View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message35777.htm

"Greg" wrote in message

One explanation for that behaviour is that you are importing the images

into

an unusual working space.
Check your RGB working space setting, and consider enabling "warn on

missing

profile", and "warn on
profile mismatch", etc. I suspect if you manually *assign* sRGB to your images in Photoshop, they’ll look
fine.

Greg.

The other programs don’t use *any* profiles, whereas PS does. If closed loop color matching is what he wants, and he’s not going to print anything, then he should just use his monitor profile as his working space; he’ll get a perfect match provided his monitor profile is accurate. OTOH, if he wants to go outside to the web, then you’re right – use sRGB as the working space and accept the fact that if he gets a slight mismatch (via a monitor space soft-proof) in his own workflow it doesn’t matter ~ very few folks out there have calibrated and profiled their monitors.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Agreed. Obviously, if he knows the *actual* colour space of the images, then that colour space
should be assigned. I was merely offering a "first step" to sensible appearance in Photoshop.
(well, a second step – since he had already proofed in monitor space – but you know what I mean)

Greg.

"Flycaster" wrote in message

"Greg" wrote in message

One explanation for that behaviour is that you are importing the images

into

an unusual working space.
Check your RGB working space setting, and consider enabling "warn on

missing

profile", and "warn on
profile mismatch", etc. I suspect if you manually *assign* sRGB to your images in Photoshop, they’ll look
fine.

Greg.

The other programs don’t use *any* profiles, whereas PS does. If closed loop color matching is what he wants, and he’s not going to print

anything,

then he should just use his monitor profile as his working space; he’ll

get

a perfect match provided his monitor profile is accurate. OTOH, if he

wants

to go outside to the web, then you’re right – use sRGB as the working

space

and accept the fact that if he gets a slight mismatch (via a monitor space soft-proof) in his own workflow it doesn’t matter ~ very few folks out

there

have calibrated and profiled their monitors.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

(but yes, I agree/understand that if a perfect match to non colour managed apps is required, in Photoshop, then
the working space should simply be the monitor profile)

"Greg" wrote in message

Agreed. Obviously, if he knows the *actual* colour space of the images,

then

that colour space
should be assigned. I was merely offering a "first step" to sensible appearance in Photoshop.
(well, a second step – since he had already proofed in monitor space – but you know what I mean)

Greg.

"Flycaster" wrote in message

"Greg" wrote in message

One explanation for that behaviour is that you are importing the

images

into

an unusual working space.
Check your RGB working space setting, and consider enabling "warn on

missing

profile", and "warn on
profile mismatch", etc. I suspect if you manually *assign* sRGB to

your

images in Photoshop, they’ll look
fine.

Greg.

The other programs don’t use *any* profiles, whereas PS does. If closed loop color matching is what he wants, and he’s not going to print

anything,

then he should just use his monitor profile as his working space; he’ll

get

a perfect match provided his monitor profile is accurate. OTOH, if he

wants

to go outside to the web, then you’re right – use sRGB as the working

space

and accept the fact that if he gets a slight mismatch (via a monitor

space

soft-proof) in his own workflow it doesn’t matter ~ very few folks out

there

have calibrated and profiled their monitors.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

"Greg" wrote in message

(but yes, I agree/understand that if a perfect match to non colour managed apps is required, in Photoshop, then
the working space should simply be the monitor profile)

No problem, I knew you had it the first time. Nonetheless, this certainly wouldn’t be my suggestion, but it *will* do what he apparently wants….not that his monitor will match anyone else’s, but that won’t be an issue in a closed loop..

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

1) because on Windows there is no operating system color management

2) Because you shouldn’t need to use soft proofing — if you do, it probably means that your monitor profile is incorrect.

Chris

In article , Unregistered
wrote:

Just recently, after I really thought I had eventually understood allthis color management stuff, I got confused by PS. I have a profiledmonitor, everything looks fine under Windows (grey is really grey,exposure is right etc.) – that’s what a monitor profile is for.
What I do not understand now is, why the same plain image with noembedded profile whatsoever, looks perfect outside Photoshop, but needsto be soft-proofed using the monitor profile inside PS (or,alternatively as you mentioned, needs to be converted to the monitorcolor space)… Why does PS seem to bypass the operating systems colormanagement????
Any idea?
thanks
-DSUnregistered

In article , Unregistered
wrote:

Well, colors and greys are perfect in Windows everywhere *outside* of> Photoshop in every non-color managed application – that is why I> select a monitor pofile in Windows’ display settings and calibration> software (BasiCColor in my case)?

Because most other applications don’t use the monitor profile at all. They just write the bits directly to the video card.

Only a few applications (like Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, etc.) are actually using your display profile.

Chris