Colour Management..again!

DavidUK · 02-12-2005, 19:26

This is a subject I've been banging on about for quite some time, and today I received a book I'd ordered ; "The Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby.

I was flicking through and found a chapter on colour correction, and the first step in this chapter is to change the working colour space from sRGB IEC61966-2.1 to Adobe RGB (1998). I thought OK, I'll give this a go, but as I was doing so I noticed a profile was available for my monitor, an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454.

Which profile should I use? any suggestions would be appreciated!

Gandhi · 02-12-2005, 20:40

the profile for your monitor is the one you should select by right-clicking on the desktop, going to settings>advanced>colour management and then add your monitors profile and make it the default. Then run Adobe gamma if you're calibrating your screen that way, but use your monitor's ICC profile as the starting point. Then save the finished profile as an overwrite. see this diagram...

DavidUK · 03-12-2005, 10:37

I think that's why I did, took the iiyama profile, used the Adobe Gamma to perform some modifications and then saved it over the top.

I have two profiles for my printer, each for a different type of paper. I apply them in Photoshop, and then turn off colour correction in the printer driver. Applying them makes the colours more vibrant - when I use the printer drivers colour correction (i.e. use the default colour space in PS) the colours in the photos always look flat...but when using the profiles for the printer, although the colours are more vibrant the image as a whole goes a lot darker. Perhaps I need to tweak the levels once the profile has been applied.

..it makes my head spin!

03-12-2005, 12:20

Just makes your head spin? I feel positively nauseous at the thought of it all hehe
Everytime I see that Norman Wotsisname link I start to shudder.

Gandhi · 03-12-2005, 12:58

once you've got your head around it, it's not that hard. really. the pic above explains it all. honest.

http://www.normankoren.com/ He's my hero!

Just for you marcel

03-12-2005, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by gandhi

once you've got your head around it, it's not that hard. really. the pic above explains it all. honest.

http://www.normankoren.com/ He's my hero!

Just for you marcel

/shudders in the corner.

DavidUK · 03-12-2005, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel

Just makes your head spin? I feel positively nauseous at the thought of it all hehe
Everytime I see that Norman Wotsisname link I start to shudder.

..well it is rather annoying, as I shelled out 250 notes on an Epson R800 about 6-8 months ago, and theres guys on my course coming in with much lower models and much better looking photos!

I've changed the colour temperature of my monitor, followed the Adobe Gamma and used Epson .icc profiles and I'm still not confident the results I'm getting are correct. I've held off buying a Spyder 2 so far, but I can see myself investing in one shortly. It almost takes the pleasure out of photography!

When it annoys me a little too much I find myself reaching for the F75 and having a bash with that, which I enjoy, but I've discovered that Boots isnt the best place for developing.... a friend recommended Peak Imaging so I may give them a try next time I used the 35mm!

DavidUK · 03-12-2005, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by gandhi

once you've got your head around it, it's not that hard. really. the pic above explains it all. honest.

http://www.normankoren.com/ He's my hero!

Just for you marcel

...is this a good site? I notice it has a tutorial section!

DavidUK · 03-12-2005, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel

/shudders in the corner.

....jeeeeeez

Just had a look through the tutorials, I get your point! bigtime

***Steve*** · 03-12-2005, 18:53

Previously I hadn’t followed the link and after reading this thread I thought I would have a quick look. My first port of call was his light and colour (an introduction) tutorial. I got as far as the “Relationship between RGB, HSV, and HSL color representation” which reads as follows...

Quote:

L = (V+W)/2
SHSV = (V-W) / V
SHSL = (V-W) / (V+W) = (V-W) / (2L) ; L <= 0.5
SHSL = (V-W) / (2-V-W) = (V-W) / (2-2L) ; L > 0.5
Any color with R, G, or B = 1 has V = 1.
Maximum saturation occurs when W = 0.
A bright, fully saturated color (max(R,G,B) = V = 1; min(R,G,B) = W = 0; SHSV = SHSL = 1) must have L = 0.5. L = 1 corresponds to pure white.

My next port of call was back here with a spinning head. He may know his stuff but it’s a little too advanced for me.

I’ll stick to picking CT’s brains for now

DavidUK · 03-12-2005, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Previously I hadn’t followed the link and after reading this thread I thought I would have a quick look. My first port of call was his light and colour (an introduction) tutorial. I got as far as the “Relationship between RGB, HSV, and HSL color representation” which reads as follows...

My next port of call was back here with a spinning head. He may know his stuff but it’s a little too advanced for me.

I’ll stick to picking CT’s brains for now

..indeed. All I want is for the picture on screen to look the same when it's printed, is this too much to ask!

..right, off to buy a new CF card to make myself feel better.. ah retail therapy.

03-12-2005, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidUK

..indeed. All I want is for the picture on screen to look the same when it's printed, is this too much to ask!

..right, off to buy a new CF card to make myself feel better.. ah retail therapy.

Hey i haven't even got to the printing stage yet!
All I want is for my monitor to be set right at the moment, so that when I'm twiddling with my shots in RSE or PS, and for example, I think it's underexposed and too dark, then it really IS underexposed and too dark.

However, just getting this is a nightmare.

DavidUK · 03-12-2005, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel

Hey i haven't even got to the printing stage yet!
All I want is for my monitor to be set right at the moment, so that when I'm twiddling with my shots in RSE or PS, and for example, I think it's underexposed and too dark, then it really IS underexposed and too dark.

However, just getting this is a nightmare.

..I took the advice of a friend for the printing stage. I didn't really have a clue about PS, or colour profiles. What I do know is that printing at home (mainly for my photography class) is costing me a fortune in paper and ink, I'm tempted to take a sidestep and take my CF card to a retail outlet and print there, although I know that's the easy way out!

The R800 is a great printer, but with eight cartridges, it's by no means cheap to run.

..and I know all about images being too dark, seems it happens to us D70 owners a lot!

Gandhi · 03-12-2005, 19:53

I must admit. Norman Koren IS a bit of a tech head. I skimmed through most of it. I don't think you need to understand all the complicated math stuff.

My prints were way too dark to start off. I'm now using the correct profile for the paper/ink/printer from Ilford and that helped.

What also helped was changing the print method to 'relative colormetric' Dunno why. What I see on the 'print preview' in no way represents what I get out at the other end.

Strange.

BTW one of the things you do in darkrooms is make test strips for exposure/filtering etc. As a translation I print a series of small images on one piece of paper, with different settings. Saves ink and paper.

DavidUK · 03-12-2005, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by gandhi

I must admit. Norman Koren IS a bit of a tech head. I skimmed through most of it. I don't think you need to understand all the complicated math stuff.

My prints were way too dark to start off. I'm now using the correct profile for the paper/ink/printer from Ilford and that helped.

What also helped was changing the print method to 'relative colormetric' Dunno why. What I see on the 'print preview' in no way represents what I get out at the other end.

Strange.

BTW one of the things you do in darkrooms is make test strips for exposure/filtering etc. As a translation I print a series of small images on one piece of paper, with different settings. Saves ink and paper.

..the profiles I use came directly from Epson. I use the Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, and the profile is matched to that. I think the mistake Ive made up to now is tweaking the levels, and then applying the profile before printing. Perhaps I should apply the profile and then colour correct. The mind boggles

..I think I need to find another R800 user and compare notes.

***Steve*** · 03-12-2005, 21:03

Hey, try adding in a monitor that is just plain faulty and try working along those lines too. it doesn't matter how I profile the thing it is just rubbish and doesn't display anything correctly and bleeds light in the strangest of places. I see it as a challenge, no really I do. I gain hours of fun working on this

Gandhi · 03-12-2005, 21:16

you shouldn't need to apply the profile to the image.

My basic workflow for prionting is.....

Load image

Sharpen for printing (beyond what would normally be acceptable for web viewing)

then this is what my print with preview box looks like....

Then this is what my printer properties looky likey!

The this is what my print preview screen looks like ( notice is doesn't look like anything like it should!) colours way too limited, overbright etc.

Now, this works ok for me. I sometimes have to lighten the image either with levels or a curves adjustment in PS.

I think where people go wrong is they think that using a digital darkroom is omehow gonna be easier than a wet one. (that's not a dig at you specificaly BTW) With all the variables involved it's as much of an intricate and confusing a process as the good ole days were.

I hope those screenies give you some ideas to try. But really. the best way is to print a series of small images on a large sheet of paper, side by side, using all the possible combinations of settings on PS and the printer driver. eventually you will come across one that works for you. and then you'll change paper and have to start all over again.

Alternatively, you could pay £200+ for a colorimeter and then £35+ a time to have profiles made for your paper/ink/printer combos.

Oh, and by the way, Don't forget that the light you view your prints under will affect how your eye percieves the colour/brightness of the print

02-12-2005, 19:26	#1 (permalink)
DavidUK Getting Comfy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Leeds Posts: 191	Colour Management..again! This is a subject I've been banging on about for quite some time, and today I received a book I'd ordered ; "The Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby. I was flicking through and found a chapter on colour correction, and the first step in this chapter is to change the working colour space from sRGB IEC61966-2.1 to Adobe RGB (1998). I thought OK, I'll give this a go, but as I was doing so I noticed a profile was available for my monitor, an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454. Which profile should I use? any suggestions would be appreciated! __________________ My photography teacher says ; "We don't make mistakes, we gain experience!" My gear.. Nikon D70, Nikon 18-70mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Manfrotto legs..a few Lee Filters. http://www.dsphotography.org.uk

02-12-2005, 20:40	#2 (permalink)
Gandhi Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: bath, somerserset Posts: 966	the profile for your monitor is the one you should select by right-clicking on the desktop, going to settings>advanced>colour management and then add your monitors profile and make it the default. Then run Adobe gamma if you're calibrating your screen that way, but use your monitor's ICC profile as the starting point. Then save the finished profile as an overwrite. see this diagram...

03-12-2005, 10:37	#3 (permalink)
DavidUK Getting Comfy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Leeds Posts: 191	I think that's why I did, took the iiyama profile, used the Adobe Gamma to perform some modifications and then saved it over the top. I have two profiles for my printer, each for a different type of paper. I apply them in Photoshop, and then turn off colour correction in the printer driver. Applying them makes the colours more vibrant - when I use the printer drivers colour correction (i.e. use the default colour space in PS) the colours in the photos always look flat...but when using the profiles for the printer, although the colours are more vibrant the image as a whole goes a lot darker. Perhaps I need to tweak the levels once the profile has been applied. ..it makes my head spin!

03-12-2005, 12:20	#4 (permalink)
Marcel Posts: n/a	Just makes your head spin? I feel positively nauseous at the thought of it all hehe Everytime I see that Norman Wotsisname link I start to shudder.

03-12-2005, 12:58	#5 (permalink)
Gandhi Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: bath, somerserset Posts: 966	once you've got your head around it, it's not that hard. really. the pic above explains it all. honest. http://www.normankoren.com/ He's my hero! Just for you marcel

03-12-2005, 19:53	#14 (permalink)
Gandhi Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: bath, somerserset Posts: 966	I must admit. Norman Koren IS a bit of a tech head. I skimmed through most of it. I don't think you need to understand all the complicated math stuff. My prints were way too dark to start off. I'm now using the correct profile for the paper/ink/printer from Ilford and that helped. What also helped was changing the print method to 'relative colormetric' Dunno why. What I see on the 'print preview' in no way represents what I get out at the other end. Strange. BTW one of the things you do in darkrooms is make test strips for exposure/filtering etc. As a translation I print a series of small images on one piece of paper, with different settings. Saves ink and paper.

03-12-2005, 21:03	#16 (permalink)
*Steve* Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: An Englishman living in Germany Posts: 16,490	Hey, try adding in a monitor that is just plain faulty and try working along those lines too. it doesn't matter how I profile the thing it is just rubbish and doesn't display anything correctly and bleeds light in the strangest of places. I see it as a challenge, no really I do. I gain hours of fun working on this

03-12-2005, 21:16	#17 (permalink)
Gandhi Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: bath, somerserset Posts: 966	you shouldn't need to apply the profile to the image. My basic workflow for prionting is..... Load image Sharpen for printing (beyond what would normally be acceptable for web viewing) then this is what my print with preview box looks like.... Then this is what my printer properties looky likey! The this is what my print preview screen looks like ( notice is doesn't look like anything like it should!) colours way too limited, overbright etc. Now, this works ok for me. I sometimes have to lighten the image either with levels or a curves adjustment in PS. I think where people go wrong is they think that using a digital darkroom is omehow gonna be easier than a wet one. (that's not a dig at you specificaly BTW) With all the variables involved it's as much of an intricate and confusing a process as the good ole days were. I hope those screenies give you some ideas to try. But really. the best way is to print a series of small images on a large sheet of paper, side by side, using all the possible combinations of settings on PS and the printer driver. eventually you will come across one that works for you. and then you'll change paper and have to start all over again. Alternatively, you could pay £200+ for a colorimeter and then £35+ a time to have profiles made for your paper/ink/printer combos. Oh, and by the way, Don't forget that the light you view your prints under will affect how your eye percieves the colour/brightness of the print