|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2006 08:34:53 PM · #51 |
Steve,
thanks for detailed and thoughtful answers! They helped a lot, but I am still not quite clear. Maybe I misunderstand the calibration procedure. When I ran this program, all it did, if I am not mistaken, was to generate that file, Viewsonic.icc which I then could use in Photosop or other coplor-management-aware software. It did not change the way images are displayed on my screen within a browser or any other image displaying program, even in photoshop, unless this calibrated profile is applied. So if my monitor was too dark or too green to begin with, it will still be so, except when I use the Viewsonic.icc color profile inside Photoshop. Am i right here? If yes, then if I choose AdobeRGB as my working space, it will still be un-calibrated, and the colors will not match "proofs" shown in calibrated space. Will it be the case, and if so, what would I do then? I hope I make myself clear...
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by ltsimring:
I am still a bit confused (or maybe even more than before :)) ... Where does calibrated monitor profile come in here? I calibrated my monitor, which created a color profile which I called, let's say, Viewsonic.icc, put it in the profiles sub-directory in Photoshop, and I use that as my default working colorspace. Am I wrong? How should I use this calibraiton-derived Viewsonic.icc then?
Now since my default working space is Viewsonic.icc, when I import the file in photoshop, it asks me whether I want to convert to the working profile, leave the existing one (presumably, sRGB), or discard it. I usually select "convert". What should I do? |
Good questions.
Where does calibrated monitor profile come in here?
Monitor calibration is what you do to make your specific monitor display "correctly". Theoretically that means the colors displayed on your monitor will match every other properly calibrated monitor.
If all you are doing is generating output for web displays and you know you have a perfectly calibrated monitor then setting your working color space to your monitor should be just fine.
Am I wrong? How should I use this calibraiton-derived Viewsonic.icc then?
However, if you want to output for print AND for web graphics then it gets more complicated.
Setting your working color space to your monitor probably will not generate good results for printing. Since most people want to print their pictures as well as display them on the web they want to chose a color space better suited for print output than their monitor profile. Photoshop gurus recommend using "Adobe RGB (1998)" as your working space because it is a good middle of the road color space from which all different kinds of output can be generated, including 48-bit RGB printing. Most will recommend it even if your intended is CMYK print output and convert it in the end.
It is even hard to argue for sRGB as a working color space when all your printing must be submitted to third party for printing that REQUIRES .jpeg files which are ALWAYS sRGB. The reason for that is post processing done in "Adobe RGB (1998)" will look better when converted back down to sRGB than it would look if post processed entirely within sRGB. I know, I've done both with the same image and can testify to that fact.
You want to use your Viewsonic monitor profile chosen in proof setup when you want to compare the web display with your Photoshop display. f they differ significantly and you KNOW your monitor is correctly calibrated then you use that profile to make final adjustments just before you output your web file, but don't save those changes in your post processed master file.
I usually select "convert". What should I do?
Yes... always convert to your working color space. My recommendation, though you certainly are not required to do so, would be you switch to "Adobe RGB (1998)" as your working color space. It might not affect you now, but it will later if you print your pictures. |
|
|
|
|
04/17/2006 09:30:26 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by ltsimring:
...I am still not quite clear. Maybe I misunderstand the calibration procedure. When I ran this program, all it did, if I am not mistaken, was to generate that file, Viewsonic.icc which I then could use in Photosop or other coplor-management-aware software. It did not change the way images are displayed on my screen within a browser or any other image displaying program, even in photoshop, unless this calibrated profile is applied. So if my monitor was too dark or too green to begin with, it will still be so, except when I use the Viewsonic.icc color profile inside Photoshop. Am i right here? If yes, then if I choose AdobeRGB as my working space, it will still be un-calibrated, and the colors will not match "proofs" shown in calibrated space. Will it be the case, and if so, what would I do then? I hope I make myself clear... |
Hmmmmmm... at the risk of confusing things more...
First, you are right, that is exactly what the program did. It generated an .icc profile for your monitor.
An .icc profile is a table telling a particular device how to display colors. Monitors, printers, scanners and all sorts of devices that deal with color have .icc profiles unique to those devices. With printers there is usually an .icc profile for each different type of paper used with that printer.
Photoshop tries to be smart. If you do NOT have proof colors selected it will default it's display controls to your current monitor profile. That remains true no matter how often you recalibrate your monitor. This is why you can chose "Adobe RGB (1998)" as your working space yet still see it displayed using your monitor .icc profile.
If you select proof colors for a different device or printer/paper combination it will adjust its display to simulate what the colors will look like on the selected device or printer. What that means is you should not normally have to chose proof colors in post processing unless you want to see what it looks like on some device other than your own monitor. That is the theory anyway. :)
However, you decided to set your working color space to your monitor. People generally do not do that. That might mean you have to select your monitor in proof setup to see how it will display on the web. I don't know. You probably already know that from your own experiments.
My official recommendation, though, is that in FUTURE editing that you use "Adobe RGB (1998)" as your working color space and it will work better. That makes post processing more device independent that way. As it is now when you get a different monitor you will probably have to reprocess all your pictures.
Message edited by author 2006-04-17 21:32:51.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 01:09:32 PM · #53 |
Steve,
thanks again, I think I am getting it, albeit slowly. In addition to your explanations, I've read this essay, and found it pretty useful. I have one remaining question (actually, more, but this one is the most unsettling at the moment): should I use Windows RGB or Monitor RGB as my "Proof setup" colorspace? I thought since I've calibrated my monitor, it should display colors "correctly". i.e. identical to a standard RGB monitor. However I do see some changes when I switch from one to another (it is noticably less vivid with Windows RGB). Does it mean that my monitor is out of calibration again? And which one should I choose in general if I intend to post the photo on-line?
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 01:17:52 PM · #54 |
| I think I figured out my problem. Adobe Bridge was coverting my RAW files to Adobe RGB 1998 not sRGB so that was the profile even though my preferences were set to sRGB... |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 07:58:18 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 07:58:18 AM EDT.
|
