Colour management problems with Photoshop

[Damo77]

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

Fixable how? If it was fixable, wouldn't you have fixed it?
Trust me: https://www.damiensymonds.net/bridge-30-day-challenge

[Tannin]

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

No idea what this means. Sorry.

[Damo77]

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.

ONLY the programs that are capable of reading the monitor profile. As I said, very few are.

This is a common misunderstanding, I assure you. You see, that which we glibly call "monitor calibration" is actually two different, though consecutive, processes - calibration followed by profiling.

Calibration is the hardware part - shifting the way the monitor displays colours. Of course this is the most visible one, and yes, it affects all programs.

Then profiling is the part where the calibration device reads and records a "description" of the monitor's characteristics. This profile is saved in your system, where programs (which are capable of doing so) look for it and use it. Of course the Adobe programs are capable of this, but a lot of others aren't.

More info here: https://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/0...libration.html

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.

I'd need to know more about this. Exactly what the difference looked like. I'm happy to pursue it with you if you like, but since you're now using CC 2017, it seems that that's what we need to concentrate on.

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!

NO. Ameerat's settings are CATASTROPHIC. I can't stress this enough. You've turned off Photoshop's colour management, and now nothing you see in Photoshop is correct. Your PS Color Settings must remain on "North America General Purpose 2" at ALL TIMES.

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?

How your granny, or anyone else, views your digital images is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that YOU are maintaining perfection.

https://www.damiensymonds.net/2013/1...standards.html

And by "perfection" we mean that your calibrated screen (in a colour-managed program) displays images exactly the same as your pro lab prints them. Were you following my calibration instructions here? https://www.damiensymonds.net/calibration.html

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.

The Dells have an excellent reputation. The Samsungs are dreadful, make sure that is only your second screen, where you have your panels and folders and stuff. Don't trust it for colour.

It is a Windows limitation that you can only load a single colour profile into a graphics card

Not true at all. Windows can run multiple monitor profiles. If you have this limitation, it would be because of your calibrator. You mentioned below that you have a Spyder4, but didn't mention which one - Express, Pro or Elite. The Express can only create one monitor profile, but the Pro and Elite can do multiples.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I forgot, two more relevant pieces:
https://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/0...r-profile.html
https://www.damiensymonds.net/2011/0...ut-screen.html

[Steve Axford]

"Fixable how? If it was fixable, wouldn't you have fixed it?
Trust me: https://www.damiensymonds.net/bridge-30-day-challenge"



Why should I trust you?

I said it was fixable by dropping the exposure. Very easy and not needed often.

I started reading your article and I have to say I was put off by the opening statement.
"I know that so many of you are out there, using Lightroom because you were told it’s what photographers use.
You’re patiently tolerating the useless clipping warnings, stoically turning on soft-proofing every time, bravely navigating the complicated filing system, and naively flicking back and forth between multiple editing programs; because you were told it’s what photographers do."
That doesn't apply to me and you don't seem at all interested in why I find lightroom so good, so you actually have no idea if I could find something else to be better. I'll give you a hint. I use LRTimelapse and Helicon Focus and I run multiple libraries of up to 100,000 photos, each. I try to keep that number down as it can slow things down.

[Damo77]

I said it was fixable by dropping the exposure. Very easy and not needed often.

But this is the point! That's completely unnecessary. In a Bridge workflow, you never have any nasty surprises, never have to go back and adjust Exposure.

Adobe have had ten years to fix these problems with Lightroom, and they continue to ignore it.

Please, try Bridge. You'll love a workflow without any ambiguity.

[Steve Axford]

You don't get it do you. LRTimelapse is a product that works with LR. Helicon focus also integrates well with LR. LR has a superb workflow for my needs. You have given me no reason why I would bother changing. You don't even seem to have read what I have said.

[Damo77]

We're having this (off-topic) conversation because you mentioned the colour space problems in Lightroom. They are known problems, and Adobe have made no effort to fix them. I'm simply telling you the solution. That is all.

[Steve Axford]

I mentioned a small histogram problem (singular, not plural), and I said it was a small problem. You immediately said I should change to Bridge. I explained why not. You repeated your demand, ignoring my explanation. Your solution would create far more problems than it might solve.

[Damo77]

It's not a small histogram problem, it's a catastrophic histogram problem, and it's the reason why so many of us use Bridge instead of Lightroom.

[Steve Axford]

You must have a different definition of catastrophe than I do.

[ameerat42]

No idea what this means. Sorry.

No matter. Take it as a +

[farmmax]

All I care is that the photos I see on my screen match my printed photos. Between Tannin and Am, they have provided a more convenient solution to this happening than my original method. Some people are technical people who want to know exactly how, and why, everything works in the most minute details. Me, I'll take the most convenient solution which works FOR ME. The end result, is all I care about, and the only person it has to satisfy is me.

[Damo77]

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!

Please reassure me you're not still persevering with these settings.

[Tannin]

My word I am. They have one great advantage: they actually work.

(I have commitments over the weekend but will get back to this thread with some detail when I get a chance.)