Photoshop and Windows XP

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Brenton, Nov 22, 2004.

  1. Brenton

    Brenton Guest

    Can anyone tell me why both of the photoshop versions that I use...
    Elements 2.0 and Photoshop 5.0 show the same photo almost identically on
    the screen... but when I double click on the picture in the file and
    view it using the windows XP preview program.. it looks VERY different
    (all red and "yucky" - phototechnical term :)

    If it is any help .. I have the photoshops set to 1998 adobe colour
    settings.

    Is it time to just lash out and buy a SPYDER?

    THe problem I find with my LCD screen is that if I move my head up and
    down an inch.. the colours completely change :-(
    BRenton
     
    Brenton, Nov 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Brenton

    Marli Guest

    Sound like a colour space issue. Windows will not take any notice of the
    colour space you are using.
     
    Marli, Nov 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Brenton

    Bushy Guest

    THe problem I find with my LCD screen is that if I move my head up and
    And just think, it cost more for it than it was going to cost for a big
    screen!
    ;<(
    Peter
     
    Bushy, Nov 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Brenton

    k Guest

    | Can anyone tell me why both of the photoshop versions that I use...
    | Elements 2.0 and Photoshop 5.0 show the same photo almost identically on
    | the screen... but when I double click on the picture in the file and
    | view it using the windows XP preview program.. it looks VERY different
    | (all red and "yucky" - phototechnical term :)



    PS renders the image through a profile, ie, it looks at the green and goes
    "oh looky here, a green bit.. time for me to apply my profile" <goes on to
    mangle the green/red/all colours> then presents it proudly to you through
    the monitor profile it applies (or doesn't, depending on it's mood*)
    whereas Windows is stupid and just goes "ah red.." and shows you red.
    Windows is actually simply displaying the RBG values in their purest form,
    subject to the monitors limitations and calibration.

    if your profiling is dodgy then what you see in windows is what the colours
    truly are. Run a colour picker over a ptch and check for yourself
    (free picker called colorcop:
    http://www.grafxfreeware.homestead.com/colorcop.html ) it's tiny and worth
    it


    open the image in irfanview or explorer, anything that doesn't apply a
    profile and have a look at the image.


    <rant>
    profiles in general are a curse or salvation depending on whether you
    *really* know how to use them. too many folks use a 'profile' to unmangle a
    bad scan then another 'profile' to hopefully de-mangle the resulting PS'd
    image, then another mangle when sending things to print. All the while
    curves are getting crossed, uncrossed and generally messed up


    *btw, sometimes PS fails to engage profiles -BAD news if you depend on them
    and something that leads to the heartache of repetitive recallibrations!!


    Calibrating and profiling in the PS sense is fantastic for graphic artists
    who need say the Pantone 176 sample swatch to exactly colour match all the
    way though softproofing, proofing and press.. for photogs who *do not* use
    exact colours, it can lead to a lot of confusion, spent money and
    frustration

    remember, we want things to look 'right' according to our memory - under
    whatever lighting we display the image, so 1 print will look right for
    tungsten, another for fluro. Neither is 'right' as they're both completely
    different in colour! Even printing to the 5500K 'standard' we still don't
    colour match to anything other than our memory.. If it looks right to our
    eye and there are no obvious casts then that's the best we can hope to
    achieve

    </rant>

    k
     
    k, Nov 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Brenton

    Ken Chandler Guest

    As others have noted this is due to both Adobe products acknowledging the
    embedded ICC profile, something the XP preview program doesn't do.

    Often photographers will post image to their website with the images still
    in the Adobe 1998 (or other color space) and the resulting images that
    appears flat or lacking punch. The browser doesn't acknowledge the embedded
    ICC profile either.

    Here is something for you to try in Photoshop:

    Image | Mode | Convert to Profile | sRGB

    Save the file under a different name then look at both files under
    Photoshop/Elements then both under XP's Photo viewer or Internet Explorer or
    whatever ...
    If you are using a closed system where you are the one scanning, editing and
    printing all in house always on the same input/output devices then one may
    not see a need for profiling, you can print your image, tweak it, reprint
    it, tweak it, reprint ....

    Profiling will give you predictability, if you change printers and want to
    achieve the same (or closest possible) match to your previous printer a
    workflow that includes profiling will make life a lot easier. If you are
    sending work out to be printed and want some predictability of the output
    then profiling can be a big help. Being able to softproof what your image
    will look like on different output devices and/or different medias for those
    output devices and the gamut of those devices/medias is a big plus of
    profiling.

    KC
     
    Ken Chandler, Nov 22, 2004
    #5
  6. Brenton

    Ryadia Guest

    --------------------------------------
    What happens when you print it?
    Sometimes the best method of handling colour is not to handle it all. Switch
    off all colour management in Photoshop and you should see the same as with
    Windows preview.

    If, under Photoshop, you choose to print with preview, you can further "not
    manage" colour by turning over the management of colour to the printer
    instead of "same as source". In the absence of a calibrated system, this
    will yield "pretty good" results. Basically you go from image to paper
    without intermediate management of colour.

    The theory of no colour management possibly suiting a quick and dirty
    solution for "pretty close" colours works on the presumption that if the
    image looks right on a Windows screen, Windows must be doing a halfway
    decent job of colour interpretation so in the event of not being able to
    understand the incredibly complex colour management issues of Photoshop...
    Don't use them.

    There is not an LCD screen made which you or I can afford that is a good
    editing screen. ViewSonic make a 19" graphics screen called the "graphics
    series G90f" which is a real no brainer on a Radeon card to get a balance of
    colour. It costs less than a crappy LCD screen. Get one and ditch the flat
    screen!

    Without trying to insult you... If you can't get your head around Photoshop
    colour management, buying a $500 spyder is not going to do you much good.
    Tools are only of use to those who know how to use them. A better starting
    point is to use the wizard of Adobe Gamma to get your system close. Squint
    if you can't see any difference in the contrast until it changes! Trust in
    the printer to be able to at least get close to right colour and you ought
    to be able to achieve passable results in a short time.

    Incidentally ... did you sell the boat?
     
    Ryadia, Nov 22, 2004
    #6
  7. I have found LCD screen to be on the mast part useless for WYSIWYG photo
    editing also..... unless it's an Apple. The new cinema displays are
    excellent (I think better than CRT personally) and surprisingly just as
    cheap as some of the other brands like LG.
     
    AU Digital POTD, Nov 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Brenton

    k Guest

    | k wrote:


    | If you are using a closed system where you are the one scanning, editing
    and
    | printing all in house always on the same input/output devices then one may
    | not see a need for profiling, you can print your image, tweak it, reprint
    | it, tweak it, reprint ....

    is very true about closed systems, however profiling need not be using the
    ICC method (it's worth reading their charter at www.color.org) The other way
    is to calibrate to a creted set of swatches and then work backwards from the
    printer.


    | Profiling will give you predictability, if you change printers and want to
    | achieve the same (or closest possible) match to your previous printer a
    | workflow that includes profiling will make life a lot easier. If you are
    | sending work out to be printed and want some predictability of the output
    | then profiling can be a big help. Being able to softproof what your image
    | will look like on different output devices and/or different medias for
    those
    | output devices and the gamut of those devices/medias is a big plus of
    | profiling.

    all very true

    k
     
    k, Nov 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Brenton

    k Guest

    |
    | | >
    | [CHOMP]
    |
    | > There is not an LCD screen made which you or I can afford that is a good
    | > editing screen.
    |
    | I have found LCD screen to be on the mast part useless for WYSIWYG photo
    | editing also..... unless it's an Apple.


    which apple? they source their LCD's from 6 places! Any one mac sitting
    beside another could have a different brand of LCD in it's white casing

    ...and the video cards (!!)

    check the radeon site - they state that the cards achieve the realy kewl
    high frame rate demanded by gamers by sacrificing colour fidelity and
    sharpness

    not ideal for graphics in the least :-/



    k
     
    k, Nov 23, 2004
    #9
  10. any one of their new Cinema displays.
    I don't know if the 3 Cinema displays come from the same place or not, but
    regardless, they all display excellent colour and sharpness.... perfect for
    photo editing.
    Again... I don't know what card was driving the 23 inch I was using on
    Sunday (I know the 30 was driven by the NVIDEA GeForce 6800 Ultra DLL), but
    this thing displayed excellent colour and sharpness.... perfect for photo
    editing.
     
    AU Digital POTD, Nov 23, 2004
    #10
  11. Brenton

    Ken Chandler Guest

    Read the stuff on the front page. Also the charter of the working groups
    at: http://www.color.org/groups.html which is fairly light on.
    What workflow are you using for this? What CMS?

    KC
     
    Ken Chandler, Nov 23, 2004
    #11
  12. Brenton

    Ryadia Guest

    Of course you know there are 3D Radeon cards for gamers and 2D Radeon cards
    for graphics, don't you? The high end gamer cards do drop colour definition
    to increase screen re-draw speed in 3D rendering. Don't use 3D and you get
    all the photographic reproduction you could ever wish for.
     
    Ryadia, Nov 23, 2004
    #12
  13. Brenton

    k Guest

    | k wrote:
    | > profiling need not be
    | > using the ICC method (it's worth reading their charter at
    | > www.color.org)
    |
    | Read the stuff on the front page. Also the charter of the working groups
    | at: http://www.color.org/groups.html which is fairly light on.
    |
    | > The other way is to calibrate to a creted set of
    | > swatches and then work backwards from the printer.
    |


    | What workflow are you using for this? What CMS?


    cms= colour or calibration management system?



    my CMS, my workflow (someone's got to make these things up :)

    doesn't require constant tweaking, doesn't have software dependencies that
    may or may not load modules.

    Start by building swatches of a reasonable size (600x600 pixels).
    255,0,0
    0,255,0
    0,0,255
    255,255,0
    255,0,255
    0,255,255
    greyscale.
    bang in a headshot from a digicam if you can too, OK there's no 'standard'
    but it's not a big stretch to find an average outdoor uncasted headshot for
    the job

    Flatten the whole thing down and save as bitmap, then make sure you load the
    image in a prog with NO profiling, or shut off all profiling in advance (or
    print out of irfanview of explorer)

    Send to print .. in the printer dialogue box spec a media (whichever you
    like- this is a starting point), spec photo quality, spec full dpi (not ppi)
    res for maximum quality - Canons tend to suggest 'draft, standard or photo',
    Epsons say something like 320, 720 or 1440dpi (or higher)'
    same thing, different words. Make sure ICM is off, set these as the default
    and print the image.

    then LOOK at it. How badly out is it, is there a noticeable cast? if so
    reload the paper and proceed again but this time dive into the colour
    settings and make the appropriate adjustments to take you closer to the
    intended outcome. Crank intensity or reduce contrast, whatever it takes
    until you're close to right under whatever light you want to be handling
    these images.

    done? Save this new profile you just created and give it a name based on
    the media type and lighting conditions (epsonarchivalmatte 4760K or
    somesuch, vague descriptions of lighting will suffice if you don't have a
    colour temp meter)

    next bang in a sheet of a different paper, send it thru on these *same*
    settings (you need a start point!) then tweak colour settings in the print
    dialogue box until the images match, allowances made for reflectance values
    of course - save this as a different name (ilfordsemigloss 4760K) and
    continue till you have a print from each media all matching and all named.

    do it all again for different lighting if you like, saving them all named
    appropriately. Next step is to go back and give your monitor a good
    eyeballing. Using adobe gamma or the monitor settings, adjust the screen
    until the image you see matches the image you printed. The contrast will be
    hard, the colours harder but it's achievable.

    At this point you've now calibrated your printer to a set of absolute
    colours, and your monitor to your printer output.

    Next step if you're a film shooter is to go back and see just how well (or
    not) you are at scanning.
    <digress>I've got some lovely big images here in front of me from one of a
    very respected American photographer, a friend of mine who relies on others
    to produce digitisation of his films. I have the files on a CD too. I can
    pull up any one of these fantastic commercial images and check the curves,
    and let me say they're crossed to hell! I'm sure I could use ICC profiling
    to reinterpret the colours and I'm sure on the producers machine they all
    come out fine but in truth the curves are crossed and the images in an
    absolute sense are cyan in the highlights and red in the shadows. I've seen
    these images printed and they're perfect.. but with crossed curves, data is
    being abandoned somewhere down the pathway and the CMS, the workflow is
    being used to correct what amounts to a bad scan. The images on film I
    imagine are brilliant :) </digress>

    the next bit is tedious but again very do-able.

    reduce these shirly images in size and make an 8x10 canvas then dump a bunch
    of these on in separate layers, starting with one colour cast the images
    say -20 magenta thru to +20. Build a ring-around finishing off with a
    variation of intensities across the bottom. Flatten and save this image.

    Any time you intend to print to a device outside your closed workflow, send
    this image to whoever is doing the printing and have them print it
    'straight', then pick the image which most closely resembles what you expect
    (compare it to your original that you were happy with) then note the changes
    needed. Say something like -5M -15Y +5 intensity

    bung the images you're really going to send out to print into a folder,
    apply a batch process to change the images to these settings then send them
    off :) Of course the images will be different in an absolute densitometry
    sense given that each printing device has a different gamut, but at least
    this way you can make the most of the gamut available and thus maximise your
    use of the colour range available to you

    it's a different method, a cheap and easy method and one that many are
    discovering works consistently and well for them as photographers. As I
    said in the earlier post though, this would be a crap system for a graphic
    designer who depend on densitometric accuracy, but for us who need colour to
    *look* right to eyes under lighting condition X rather than to the sensor of
    a densitometer, it can work very effectively

    call it karls calibration technique if you like ;-)


    k
     
    k, Nov 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Brenton

    k Guest

    k, Nov 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Brenton

    Rowan Crowe Guest

    [...]

    http://www.imagescience.com.au/Profiling/profiling.php

    Far easier to pay $75 to get your printer accurately profiled, rather
    than fiddle around with doing it by eye. You may also go through a
    fair bit of expensive paper and ink trying to get it right. This way
    you download a couple of sample images, print them out and mail them
    in.

    (I'm not affiliated with them apart from being a happy customer. :) )
     
    Rowan Crowe, Nov 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Getting a profile made is a very good and accurate way to. The problem is
    that you need to buy one for every different paper you use. :-(

    I have just made a printer profile for my Canon i990 this week (starting
    with a known standard file and calibrated monitor for traditional lab
    output) and using small prints on the same piece of A4 paper and correcting
    the output via the printer's own adjustments, I had the results matching
    perfectly. I ran a dozen or so 6x4 prints to confirm that they were the
    same as the lab results and Bob's your uncle!

    So making what I call a printer "correction" profile is not that hard, as
    long as you keep a good record of each and every step of the process... if
    you don't, it is very easy to get confused and end up starting from square
    one again.
     
    AU Digital POTD, Nov 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Brenton

    k Guest

    |
    | | >
    | >
    | > Again... I don't know what card was driving the 23 inch I was using on
    | > Sunday (I know the 30 was driven by the NVIDEA GeForce 6800 Ultra DLL),
    | but
    | > this thing displayed excellent colour and sharpness.... perfect for
    photo
    | > editing.
    | >
    | >
    | Of course you know there are 3D Radeon cards for gamers and 2D Radeon
    cards
    | for graphics, don't you? The high end gamer cards do drop colour
    definition
    | to increase screen re-draw speed in 3D rendering. Don't use 3D and you get
    | all the photographic reproduction you could ever wish for.
    |


    which ones do the macs use?

    k
     
    k, Nov 25, 2004
    #17
  18. Brenton

    Ryadia Guest

    What's a macs?
     
    Ryadia, Nov 25, 2004
    #18
  19. Brenton

    k Guest

    |
    | | >
    | > | > |
    | > | | > | >
    | > | >
    | > | > Again... I don't know what card was driving the 23 inch I was using
    on
    | > | > Sunday (I know the 30 was driven by the NVIDEA GeForce 6800 Ultra
    | DLL),
    | > | but
    | > | > this thing displayed excellent colour and sharpness.... perfect for
    | > photo
    | > | > editing.
    | > | >
    | > | >
    | > | Of course you know there are 3D Radeon cards for gamers and 2D Radeon
    | > cards
    | > | for graphics, don't you? The high end gamer cards do drop colour
    | > definition
    | > | to increase screen re-draw speed in 3D rendering. Don't use 3D and you
    | get
    | > | all the photographic reproduction you could ever wish for.
    | > |
    | >
    | >
    | > which ones do the macs use?
    | >
    | > k
    | >
    | What's a macs?
    |

    the thread had deviated onto discussion about mac displays, I mentioned the
    radeon 9700's they used, you replied about how radeon made 2D cards, I asked
    which card a mac used..

    ?

    found out myself - gamer radeon 9700's

    not ideal for 2D work but then as stated, neither was having any one of 5
    manufacturers LCD's in an unmarked (appart from a happy apple symbol)
    display

    k
     
    k, Nov 25, 2004
    #19
  20. Brenton

    Ryadia Guest

    I was being a smart arse, k.
    Radeon 9200, 9500 and 9700 cards (PC talk here) are crisp, sharply focused
    and detailed in shadows. They make very good photo editing cards and are
    surprisingly cheap (under $100) too. ATI (Radeon's makers) provide a colour
    adjustment facility with Radeon cards which can be used to get a quick and
    dirty colour correction. They switch into 3D mode on demand but run in 2D at
    other times. 2D rendering is very well suited to Photographic editing.

    You can have a near perfect colour balanced system without needing to pay
    $250 to someone like Kayell to have a technician come and spyder your
    system. I have only ever seen 3, Apple Macs in 30 years of computers. Only
    one of them was in use for publishing and it was driving typesetter's RIP.
    I'm the wrong person to ask anything about Apple computers.
     
    Ryadia, Nov 25, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.