Colour management problems with Photoshop

[Tannin]

Photoshop insists on doing weird things to me with colour rendering.

I have mucked about for an hour or two today with assigned profiles and colour settings and got nowhere. This shouldn't be hard.

All I want is for Photoshop to display the same image in the same colours as any normal program does (any of 50 image viewers, web browsers, and so on). I just want to see perfectly ordinary, everyday SRGB.

My monitor is calibrated. I've followed the recommended steps in two or three different how-to articles - but when I look at an image in Photoshop, the colours are different to the exact same images in PMView or XNView or a web browser.. I can put the two programs side-by-side on the same screen but they do not match. At least not reliably. (I haven't been entirely systematic about testing this as it never occurred to me for an instant that something so simpler and basic could be so difficult.)

In Photoshop, simply I want to see what I'm going to get in normal use (e.g., displaying a picture on a web page).

Is there a simple way to say "Look Photoshop, don't mess me about, I just want to put pictures on the screen the exact same way everything else does"?

- - - Updated - - -

PS: additional info which may be useful: I have only recently recalibrated my screen. I used not to have this problem, but it wasn't the fresh calibration which started it. I suspect (but am not sure) that it started when I had to uninstall - reinstall Photoshop a few weeks ago because the original install started refusing to take updates.

Now I can (for example) open an image in Camera Raw, adjust it to taste, and save the image. When I look at the saved image (using almost any program) it is NOT the same colour as the version I see in Camera Raw. Photoshop proper is the same as Camera Raw. All other programs work normally.

[ameerat42]

It sounds like the "problem" that "afflicted" me with my (then) new (but still v good) laptop.

I had to tell Photoshop to use the laptop's Asus color profile (Edit - Color Settings), as shown here...
color-sett.jpg

The only thing to THEN REMEMBER is to make sure to UN-tick that color profile to "Save as..." in sRGB, as below...
color-sett2.jpg

Edit: Forgot to mention a point: If you don't UN-tick the box and save in the other profile, you get (at least) an odd
color cast - as shown here as bluish...

--- Or, none of the above

[Tannin]

Brilliant! That's working well.

Now: to save having to remember to un-tick my monitor profile every time I save, can I simply go back to Color Settings and switch Color Management Policies / RGB from "preserve embedded profiles" to OFF? (No need to answer that: I'll try it out in a moment.)

[ameerat42]

Perhaps. (Answered because I'll also look into it. Ta.)

[farmmax]

I also have a calibrated monitor.

I've had this problem for years and it's extremely frustrating. It is a common problem, but no one seems to have a definite answer. I have been going to view/proof colours in Photoshop and checking that. In the proof setup I have "Monitor RGB" checked. Then the photoshop colours are fine. Trouble is, I have to do that to every image I open, which is frustrating. Some people suggested Photoshop would remember these settings on exit, so I didn't have to do this every time, but for me that has never worked.

To check colour on photos going for printing, I view them in Faststone. Faststone colours match where I get my photos printed extremely well.

I'm off to give your method a go, but seem to remember trying something along these lines without success.

[Cage]

Blimey, I've never looked at my colour settings.

Googled it and came up with this http://www.photoshopessentials.com/b...olor-settings/ which explains what it is all about.

[Tannin]

^ What that article explains is how to set Photoshop to get great-looking rich-colour images on your own screen that practically no-one else will ever be able to look at unless they happen to have an expensive, high-quality calibrated monitor, know how to use it, and happen to be looking at the picture using software that also handles colour spaces correctly.

Very useful if you know who your target audience is, and they are part of the 0.002% of the world which uses calibrated, high-end gear. (I.e., graphics professionals and some photographers.)

Exactly the wrong advice if you want to be able to edit a picture, send it to your granny, and have it look nice on her screen.

(Come to think of it, Photoshop's default colour space setting is not SRGB as stated in the article, it is Adobe RGB (unless they have changed their policy recently). It's one of the first things you have to change when you install or reinstall Photoshop. Possibly they have changed that since I last upgraded.)

[Cage]

^ What that article explains is how to set Photoshop to get great-looking rich-colour images on your own screen that practically no-one else will ever be able to look at unless they happen to have an expensive, high-quality calibrated monitor, know how to use it, and happen to be looking at the picture using software that also handles colour spaces correctly.

Very useful if you know who your target audience is, and they are part of the 0.002% of the world which uses calibrated, high-end gear. (I.e., graphics professionals and some photographers.)

Exactly the wrong advice if you want to be able to edit a picture, send it to your granny, and have it look nice on her screen.

(Come to think of it, Photoshop's default colour space setting is not SRGB as stated in the article, it is Adobe RGB (unless they have changed their policy recently). It's one of the first things you have to change when you install or reinstall Photoshop. Possibly they have changed that since I last upgraded.)

My CS6 default setting was sRGB IEC61966-2.1. Should I leave it at that? I don't have a high end monitor, just a calibrated Dell Ultrasharp.

The article touches on the colour saturation issue toward the bottom.

The main difference between the two is that Relative Colorimetric is concerned with accurate color reproduction, while Perceptual cares more about the relationships between colors. Both are capable of giving you great looking prints, but Relative Colorimetric can sometimes produce harsh transitions between colors as it tries to keep them as close to the originals as possible. Perceptual, on the other hand, can produce smoother, more natural looking color transitions, but often at the expense of color accuracy.

This is not an area that I have looked into so maybe I should just go with the default settings.

[Tannin]

As I understand it, Kev, you should change it to the colour profile your calibration software made when you calibrated the monitor. (As per AM's post above.) That way you should be see the same things in Photoshop that you see using any other software (such as a web browser), and the same thing AM and I see looking at the picture you post (given that our monitors are also calibrated), and (allowing for the fact that her screen is probably a bit out) the same thing your granny would see if you sent the picture to her or she looked at it on the web.

If, on the other hand, your target output device is something different (a printer; the high-end graphics workstation a picture editor is using to prepare that limited edition cost-no-object coffee table book of yours that they are publishing) you should do something different. Beats me what!

[farmmax]

I changed my working space from RGB to the callibrated RGB as Am suggested and nothing happened. The photoshop colours remained stubbonly "wrong". Then I noticed in Am's settings the Conversion Settings engine was set to Adobe. Mine were on Microsoft. I changed mine to Adobe and Bingo, the photoshop colours now match the other software in the computer

All my colour management policies are set to Preserve Embedded Profile. Now when I open an image, the Embedded Profile Mismatch box comes up and I tick the "Discard the embedded profile" box. Photoshop is now remembering that setting and the box is coming up with the Discard automatically ticked, so I just tell it OK. This means when saving an image, the save to my callibrated profile is automatically discarded, as it sticks to the embedded profile. I've noticed once an image is opened for the first time with the Mismatch box, it never appears again in subsequent openings of that particular image, which is convenient.

The good thing is, I'm no longer having to remember to go to view/Proof colours every time I open every image to see the correct colours. Hooray!! Thanks!!

[agb]

I'd be looking to Damien Symonds.net colour management articles before I set my profile to the monitor profile. There in there a trouble shooter that might help too.

[Tannin]

^ I read this one - https://www.damiensymonds.net/2014/0...amut-myth.html - which happened to be the first thing Google popped up - and my immediate thought was Wow! A Photoshop Guru with his head screwed on and in the normal-human place on top of his shoulders. (As opposed to in the usual place Photoshop gurus stick their heads up.) Who'd a thunk it?

Will read some more of his stuff with great interest.

[Steve Axford]

Interesting article. It doesn't explain why I sometimes get a pic that has a good histogram in RAW, yet it becomes oversaturated when converted to TIFF (or other file type). This occurs for either sRGB or AdobeRGB. I have to reduce the exposure then it is ok. This happens with Sony and Canon RAW files. It's not common, but common enough to be annoying.
Just as a note, I do tend to process in AdobeRGB as I do have a wide gamut screen and it does make a difference to what I see, if not what others see. I agree that it makes zero sense to process in AdobeRGB if you can't see the result.

[Damo77]

^ I read this one - https://www.damiensymonds.net/2014/0...amut-myth.html - which happened to be the first thing Google popped up - and my immediate thought was Wow! A Photoshop Guru with his head screwed on and in the normal-human place on top of his shoulders. (As opposed to in the usual place Photoshop gurus stick their heads up.) Who'd a thunk it?

Will read some more of his stuff with great interest.

Thank you for your kind words.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article. It doesn't explain why I sometimes get a pic that has a good histogram in RAW, yet it becomes oversaturated when converted to TIFF (or other file type). This occurs for either sRGB or AdobeRGB. I have to reduce the exposure then it is ok. This happens with Sony and Canon RAW files. It's not common, but common enough to be annoying.

In what program are you viewing them?

- - - Updated - - -

All I want is for Photoshop to display the same image in the same colours as any normal program does (any of 50 image viewers, web browsers, and so on). I just want to see perfectly ordinary, everyday SRGB.

No, that's not how colour management works. Not all programs are colour-managed. Photoshop is, of course, and so is Bridge, but most of those 50 other viewers that you mentioned will not be.
To "make Photoshop match them" is to make Photoshop display incorrectly.
What screen do you have, and which calibrator?

[Steve Axford]

Thank you for your kind words.

- - - Updated - - -


In what program are you viewing them?

In Lightroom as RAW images. When I xfer them to PS they are usually fine, but occasionally not. Most often when I photograph a bright red subject (usually a red mushroom). I've had various theories, but none seem to quite fit. I just live with it as it just takes a drop in exposure then all is good.

[Damo77]

Oh, right, yeah.
Yes, Lightroom is utter shit, and you should upgrade your workflow to Bridge post haste.

[Tannin]

All I want is for Photoshop to display the same image in the same colours as any normal program does (any of 50 image viewers, web browsers, and so on). I just want to see perfectly ordinary, everyday SRGB.

No, that's not how colour management works. Not all programs are colour-managed. Photoshop is, of course, and so is Bridge, but most of those 50 other viewers that you mentioned will not be.
To "make Photoshop match them" is to make Photoshop display incorrectly.

Thanks so much for the reply Damien.

Is there is something I'm not getting here? Or have I explained the requirement incorrectly? Let's review.

As I understand things, when we callibrate a screen, the system is colour-corrected. Instead of its default look-up colour table, Windows substitutes a monitor-specific one created by the callibration software, which in turn is guided by the colorimeter.

At this point, most programs behave exactly as before except that Windows uses our monitor-specific look-up table to display the requested colours instead of a default generic one - i.e., the colours these programs display are now correct. (Or as correct as may be given the hardware limitations of the system.)

What colour managed programs do ... well, dammed if I know. Sometimes they work properly, sometimes they don't. My old install of Photoshop CC 2015 was apparently OK, but after upgrading to CC 2017, it was a mile out. Clearly, Photoshop was adding further "corrections" of its own, meaning that images processed by PS, when displayed in any other program on a corrected system, were horribly wrong.

Ameerat's settings cure the problem. I can now edit an image in Photoshop, look at it with any other software I like, and what I see is what I get. No more guesswork!

What's more, I can upload that image to the web or email it to my granny, and what she sees is the same as what I see, subject only to:

(a) any miscallibration of her screen. There is nothing I can do about that. I just have to hope that it isn't too far out. Thankfully, she is (of course) used to her own screen and thinks it is "normal". If I could somehow guess what is wrong with her display (too blue, bet your boots on that) and send her an image "corrected" to account for that .... well, it would come up in the right colours, and Granny - being used to her own system - would most likely think it was murky and reddish. (If she noticed the difference at all, of course.)

(b) Any changes her system introduces on a per-image basis - e.g., changes introduced by a colour-managed browser if she has one. We have no way of knowing whether she will be using colour-managed or unmanaged software. So what we need to do is provide the image with a colour profile that says "don't change anything, just show this image in the standard way you display everything else on this system, same as a non-managed viewer".

^ That is my understanding of how the system works, and as a natural consequence of that understanding, the simplest, most reliable way to work within its limitations given the aim of having pictures look as right as possible both to my imaginary granny and to people using colour-aware applications. Have I misunderstood something vital? If so, what?

What screen do you have, and which calibrator?

For the record, I'm running twin monitors: a ridiculously expensive Dell (apparently a 3014, though for reasons best known to themselves they don't bother to write the model number anywhere visible) and my wonderful old (also ridiculously expensive back in the day when a dollar was a doillar, or possibly more) Samsung SynchMaster 214T.

It is a Windows limitation that you can only load a single colour profile into a graphics card, so I just accept that the secondary monitor (the Samsung) will have strange colours if I callibrate for the Dell. (My T-Series Thinkpad actually has twin graphics cards; it may or may not be possible to configure it to use the Intel on-chip graphics for the second screen (and thus have a different colour callibration) rather than use the Nvidia card to drive both. I might investigate that one rainy day, but it's not important. One corrected monitor is enough to go on with.)

I have a Spyder 4 because I lost the Spyder 3 I bought when I couldn't find the Spyder 2.

Don't laugh!

Well, OK, laugh.

I have since found the Spyder 2 and sold it, and also found the Spyder 3 when I moved out of the shop. (Remind me to sell that one too.)

Apparently the Dell has some advanced internal callibration abilities, but to use them you have to buy yet another damn callibrator of a different brand because they don't bother making it compatible with anything except X-Rite. But you can, of course, simply callibrate it in the normal way, which should make it as good as any other 2560 x 1600 IPS monitor.

(So why spend that insane amount on the Dell? Because (a) it's lovely and big, (b) it has a much better aspect ratio than practically anything else on the market, and (c) it is the highest resolution screen the elderly but high-spec Thinkpad will accept. I should get another three to five years out of the Thinkpad and I just hope the Dell lasts that long because (given modern product lifecycles) it will be irreplacable any day now, meaning I'd need a new Thinkpad as well and T-Series Thinkpads cost a fortune so I try make them last.)

[Steve Axford]

Oh, right, yeah.
Yes, Lightroom is utter shit, and you should upgrade your workflow to Bridge post haste.

Would you like to explain that? I generally find LR to be excellent. Why would I change for the occasional fixable problem?

[ameerat42]

Good like points, Steve and Tannin: throwaway lines are not very helpful.

[agb]

Deleted post.