Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PSD with embedded color profile cross OS issues  (Read 7135 times)
cripkd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: August 31, 2010, 02:38:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello
I'm new here. I hope this is the right place to ask this.
I have a psd file, from a client, with an embedded color profile in it, that I don't have.
More, the psd was produced on a mac (hence the color profile, Cinema Display Calibrated).
I've tried converting, discarding, etc, but I still can't get the colors right 100% when I export images for web (24b png's).
Does anybody know if it is possible to get 100% the same colors both on win and mac from a psd file with an embedded custom color profile?
Also, the colors should be like the one the client sees in Photoshop on his mac. Is that possible?

Right now I can get them to look 100% like the psd looks in Photoshop on windows but the client sais the colors are washed out on his mac (actually NOT the one the design was produced on).
If i discard the color profile I get the design to look the same across all browsers and OS's but the colors are shifted to a mauve hue (the main colors are tones of blue).

Thank you.
Logged
gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2010, 03:39:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a psd file, from a client, with an embedded color profile in it, that I don't have.

If the profile is embedded, then you have the profile. It's, er, embedded.

Look at your Color Settings and set:

RGB: Preserve Embedded Profiles
Profile Mismatches: Ask When Opening - OFF
Missing Profiles: Ask When Opening - ON
Logged
cripkd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2010, 05:29:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I know what embedded profiles are, I don;t know why I explained that i don;t have it, i should have said that it's not the one I use when working in photoshop.
My question is if i will ever be able to get the design, starting with a custom color profile, to look the same on all os's and browsers (and look how the psd looks on the machine that produced it), and if yes, what are the usual steps to handle that.
Logged
gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2010, 05:36:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I know what embedded profiles are, I don;t know why I explained that i don;t have it, i should have said that it's not the one I use when working in photoshop.

The default working space you've specified in Color Settings is irrelevant. Converting from one space to another should only be done if you have a specific reason for doing so (and using 16-bits). Just use the embedded profile. It makes no difference if the image originated on Windows or Mac.
Logged
cripkd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2010, 06:33:03 AM »
ReplyReply

So am I to understand that the visual differences noticed come only from the different LCD screen's they are beeing watched on?
That is strange cos the client is comparing my html layout (which on my computer looks like the psd in photoshop) to the same psd opened in PS on his mac and he sais the colors are washed out to a certain degree.
Logged
TimG
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2010, 07:15:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like the issue is gamma, specifically, the client's is set to 1.8 and yours is set to 2.2
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2010, 12:43:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like the issue is gamma, specifically, the client's is set to 1.8 and yours is set to 2.2
Certainly gamma 1.8 might produce the described result, but gamma is set when you create the display profile, not a setting you change.  The Mac "default" (there really isn't a default) has been 2.2 for a while now, but 1.8 hasn't been practiced for a very long time (I can't remember using it since before OS X was introduced) One of those urban myths that just don't ever go away.

 I believe Apple's display profiles have been built using a different gamma setting since they went to all LCD panels away from CRT's - which was some time ago.  building a profile with 1.8 gives pretty crappy results, the default apple ones (which is the one mentioned) are not even close to that.  I don't know if they are 2.2 but they certainly aren't 1.8.

The question I would ask is why is a monitor profile embedded into the file.  that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.  If the client is going to be preparing files it makes sense to work with them to set up their mac and photoshop so they are providing useful files.

And of course, once you prepare the web files,  best options for web is still non color managed jpegs  ... no embedded profiles.

If things are washed out, it could even be just a difference in the brightness of their display vs the one the web work was done on.  unfortunately how things look on the web right now is a crap shoot, with tons of variables (display, browser, color management settings, display brightness).
Logged

jbrembat
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2010, 02:22:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And of course, once you prepare the web files,  best options for web is still non color managed jpegs  ... no embedded profiles.
Best web options are:
1- jpg  (the best choice for good quality and small filesize)
2- sRGB (the best choice for non color managed browsers)
3- embedded profile (good for all color managed browsers)

Jacopo
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2391


« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2010, 03:10:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Certainly gamma 1.8 might produce the described result, but gamma is set when you create the display profile, not a setting you change. 

This isn't true.

http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ProfilingandProofing/ACT-False-Profile.htm



Logged

TimG
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2010, 07:46:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Certainly gamma 1.8 might produce the described result, but gamma is set when you create the display profile, not a setting you change.  The Mac "default" (there really isn't a default) has been 2.2 for a while now, but 1.8 hasn't been practiced for a very long time (I can't remember using it since before OS X was introduced) One of those urban myths that just don't ever go away.

While I agree with what you are saying, it's the OP's client who is seeing washed out colors, not the OP.  My response was based on an educated guess the client's display is not calibrated.  The embedded profile name is the default for Cinema Displays, which leads me to believe it is not (has not been) calibrated.

Actually, 1.8 was around after OSX was introduced, at least up until 10.4.  I think it changed after the move to Intel.  I have a G5 in my studio which shipped with 10.4 and it came from the factory set to 1.8.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 07:49:58 AM by TimG » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8073



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2010, 09:05:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Certainly gamma 1.8 might produce the described result, but gamma is set when you create the display profile, not a setting you change. 

This isn't true.

http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ProfilingandProofing/ACT-False-Profile.htm

Best I can say is ignore anything posted by Margulis concerning color management, especially a post that old. Altering the gamma this way isn’t color management.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2391


« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2010, 10:34:38 AM »
ReplyReply

My reply was correct in the context of what Wayne posted. As to be any good it is a matter of opinion. Your outright condemnation of Dan does you no favours Andrew. He can't be wrong about everything?
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8073



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2010, 11:31:01 AM »
ReplyReply

He's right about a lot of stuff. Color management in general, using a hack to a profile to affect the tone of an image, not so much as Chris Murphy and I pointed out in this very old thread. Making up terms that don’t exist nor need to (“false profile”) is a pet peeve.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2010, 05:16:14 PM »
ReplyReply

He's right about a lot of stuff. Color management in general, using a hack to a profile to affect the tone of an image, not so much as Chris Murphy and I pointed out in this very old thread. Making up terms that don’t exist nor need to (“false profile”) is a pet peeve.

"false profiles" (or whatever you want, or don't want, to call them) are a powerful tool. I use them all the time, mainly for unblocking shadows in gamma 2.2 files (Adobe RGB etc).

Maybe you need to get out more ...
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8073



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2010, 06:05:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"false profiles" (or whatever you want, or don't want, to call them) are a powerful tool. I use them all the time, mainly for unblocking shadows in gamma 2.2 files (Adobe RGB etc).

No they don’t. Read the link again, read what Chris and I said about this. There is no such thing as a false profile. There are incorrectly embedded profiles. The assignment of this so called false profile doesn’t alter the numbers one bit until you convert the data (so there’s no free lunch here) and, if the incorrect profile was embedded in the first place, that’s the reason the data appears to have blocked shadows. Otherwise color management was correct and someone blocked up the shadows by incorrectly scanning or capturing the image and the numeric values need to be and can be altered using Photoshop or another image editor.

You can also use a kitchen knife as a screw driver but don’t delude yourself into thinking its the right tool for the job or that its better suited as a screw driver than a kitchen knife.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2010, 07:11:53 PM »
ReplyReply

No they don’t. Read the link again, read what Chris and I said about this.

They work for me, probably because I spent the time investigating how they could be used effectively in my own workflow rather than endlessly arguing on internet forums that they don't.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8073



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2010, 07:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

They work for me, probably because I spent the time investigating how they could be used effectively in my own workflow rather than endlessly arguing on internet forums that they don't.

They work for you like the fellow who’s smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day, then admits that having his left lung removed has worked well for him.

The questions you should be asking yourself is what is assigning the profile doing, why is the image blocked up in the first place. Assigning a profile has a role; its to provide the numbers a scale and definition. It doesn’t alter the values at all. If the original image has an incorrect profile, or its untagged, assign profile plays an important role. Its not a color correction move as Chris (and I) correctly point out. The failure of Dan and others to understand exactly what is happening is key here! Like Dan, polishing a turd is far less useful than avoiding turds in the first place by either properly capturing or handling images correctly. You are welcome to believe in magic underwear or “false profiles” (which again, is a made up term that has nothing to do with profiles or color management, or being false). Dan and his followers would end up spending far less work and end up with far better data if they simply strived to produce good data from the get-go. I fully understand that in some workflows, workflows from the 90’s when Dan thought up a lot of his techniques, getting lemons demanded one make lemonade. Its useful when there is no other option. No one does it better but it isn’t something we should hope for nor expect.

I would expect you have control over the images you create but maybe you work in a service bureau and have to polish images provided to you. If so, stick with Dan’s techniques. If not, ask yourself why you have a turd to polish in the first place! Its like the photographer who doesn’t understand how to properly expose his film, so the ‘fix’ is push it in the process. Or someone who doesn’t understand how to correctly develop their negs, so the ‘fix’ is to leave the print in the developer a lot longer, hoping for an acceptable image. Don’t you think proper exposure and development is a better approach? I do. But if like Dan, your lifes blood is teaching people how to fix crap images, its not in your best interest to get good data in the first place. That’s why he suggest silliness like setting ACR controls all to zero, then ‘fixing’ the resulting turd in Photoshop with a lame excuse that the curves in ACR are broken (despite the fact that it was designed this way from some very smart people at Adobe). If all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a long, extended Photoshop exercise to fix the sloppiness at capture.

So why are your shadows plugged up and why do think that assigning a profile that presumably isn’t the correct descriptor of the data is useful? Or is the original embedded profile just flat out wrong? I’m not interested in arguing, I’m interested in YOU looking a bit further under the hood here. Do it, don’t do it, makes little difference to me. But it may make a difference to you.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2391


« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2010, 03:23:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote

I would expect you have control over the images you create but maybe  you work in a service bureau and have to polish images provided to you. If so, stick with Dan’s techniques. If not, ask yourself why you have a turd to polish in the first place! Its like the photographer who doesn’t understand how to properly expose his film, so the ‘fix’ is push it in the process. Or someone who doesn’t understand how to correctly develop their negs, so the ‘fix’ is to leave the print in the developer a lot longer, hoping for an acceptable image. Don’t you think proper exposure and development is a better approach? I do. But if like Dan, your lifes blood is teaching people how to fix crap images, its not in your best interest to get good data in the first place. That’s why he suggest silliness like setting ACR controls all to zero, then ‘fixing’ the resulting turd in Photoshop with a lame excuse that the curves in ACR are broken (despite the fact that it was designed this way from some very smart people at Adobe). If all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a long, extended Photoshop exercise to fix the sloppiness at capture.

Unquote.

Andrew you seem to have a penchant for repeating the same attacks year after year in different forums using the same terms to attack Dan. Terms such as turd polishing etc etc. Are you saying that every image and every scan you deal with is "correct" to start with? As to the controls in ACR and zeroing them out, then you are the one who has it wrong. Camera Raw CS3 book by Fraser and Schewe page 129.

Quote

Camera Raw's "default" is only an arbitrary starting point. There's nothing sacred, nothing neither technically accurate nor particularly important with the default rendering of your capture. It's only a consistent place from which to start your evaluation and, ultimately your editing.

Unquote.

Are you going to condemn these two authors, one of which can't defend himself? I personally find the zero setting in ACR to be "best" but I am only an amateur.  You need to take a holiday from your attacks on Dan and check your facts now and again, otherwise your good work in other areas will become tainted and your deserved reputation damaged?

 
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 03:27:09 AM by stamper » Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2391


« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2010, 03:39:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote

No they don’t. Read the link again, read what Chris and I said about this. There is no such thing as a false profile. There are incorrectly embedded profiles. The assignment of this so called false profile doesn’t alter the numbers one bit until you convert the data (so there’s no free lunch here) and, if the incorrect profile was embedded in the first place, that’s the reason the data appears to have blocked shadows. Otherwise color management was correct and someone blocked up the shadows by incorrectly scanning or capturing the image and the numeric values need to be and can be altered using Photoshop or another image editor.

Unquote.

I hesitate to step in here because I am no expert and only an amateur, but I will. My understanding of this is if someone inadvertently takes an image that has been underexposed by a couple of stops then re assigning the gamma will be a better starting point for editing an image. If the original image had curves and blend modes applied to it then noise and image degradation would soon be evident. Someone once asked me to salvage an image that was important to him. The false profile worked best. It wasn't perfect but he was pleased. Michael Kieran in Photoshop Color Correction advocates this approach to. Do you want to attack him as well. This isn't meant to be a mainstream method of image editing. Your black and white condemnation does you no favours?
Logged

jbrembat
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2010, 05:22:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree completely with Andrew.
If you assign a different (from the true one) color space to an image you have a different monitor rendition (RGB numbers are the same).

May be you can get a better monitor rendition, but RGB numbers are the same.
You are trying to optimize the monitor rendition acting on image profile instead of acting on RGB numbers.
This is a very involved system that doesn't guarantee anything when you convert to a different output color gamut.

In other words:this is a blind guess for the final rendition.
The trick may be optimized for a particular device, but may be inappropriate for another device.

This is exactly the contrary of color management that try to unify the rendition.And this is the right way.

Jacopo
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad