Colour Mangement (Sic)
Discussion
It gives me at least mange - and usually a slight headache as well.
Every year I sit down, read some long treatise on colour management - or even color management, which you would think would be even simpler, and for people who can't juggle six letters into a sensible word. But no, it goes in - and it goes straight out again. Trivia from the 1970s I can remember. Last year's deep academic study - nada!
So: my screen saver shot looks lovely. The blues are "right". The screen(s) I use are profiled regularly.
When I upload (doesn't matter if it's Flickr! or Photobucket or whatever) I get to look at the exact same shot (remember that - it's the same file) yet the blues are deeper, and more magenta.
Now, I am about to trawl through my settings (I use RAW > Lightroom > (maybe Photomatix) > PhotoChop - nothing fancy) and come out with a jpeg file which looks fine on screen.
So why (oh why oh why
) doesn't it look the same if uploaded. What does uploading and viewing in Flickr! (for example) do to my Colour Space.
(And I can't be the only one, so you smarter types can edgeyoukate us all!)
Every year I sit down, read some long treatise on colour management - or even color management, which you would think would be even simpler, and for people who can't juggle six letters into a sensible word. But no, it goes in - and it goes straight out again. Trivia from the 1970s I can remember. Last year's deep academic study - nada!
So: my screen saver shot looks lovely. The blues are "right". The screen(s) I use are profiled regularly.
When I upload (doesn't matter if it's Flickr! or Photobucket or whatever) I get to look at the exact same shot (remember that - it's the same file) yet the blues are deeper, and more magenta.
Now, I am about to trawl through my settings (I use RAW > Lightroom > (maybe Photomatix) > PhotoChop - nothing fancy) and come out with a jpeg file which looks fine on screen.
So why (oh why oh why
) doesn't it look the same if uploaded. What does uploading and viewing in Flickr! (for example) do to my Colour Space.(And I can't be the only one, so you smarter types can edgeyoukate us all!)
Colour management is a mystery to me too - I think it's one of those areas where the deeper you get into it, the more goes wrong until you wished you hadn't started - which is why I heven't started.
However, I do note that images within Outlook Express are sometimes different from how they look outisde it, and I understand that's because that programme handles colour differently from, say, Photoshop. It may be, therefore, tnat either your browser or Photobucket, or both, are exerting their own influence on the image which you have no control over.
However, I do note that images within Outlook Express are sometimes different from how they look outisde it, and I understand that's because that programme handles colour differently from, say, Photoshop. It may be, therefore, tnat either your browser or Photobucket, or both, are exerting their own influence on the image which you have no control over.
colour profiles give me a headache - i signed upto blurb a while ago, and read deep into colour theory, printer profiles, monitor profiles, srgb vs cmyk etc etc, then i freaked out and just ordered a potobook through apple iphoto program. print quality was excellent, and most importantly the contrast and colours matched my monitor almost perfectly. far beyond my expectations.
i get equally confused at work- theres gamma for print, gamma for video, and film look gamma. plus crt's have different gamma curves to lcd screens, plus i have two completely different video cameras that dont have matching colour profiles - argh, freak out time again. I spent a day with a macbeth colour chart and managed with a lot of tweaking to get their colours and contrast to match quite well, which is good enough for what we do, and way better than they looked out of the factory.
...i wish there was a 'colour theory for dummies' guide somewhere
i get equally confused at work- theres gamma for print, gamma for video, and film look gamma. plus crt's have different gamma curves to lcd screens, plus i have two completely different video cameras that dont have matching colour profiles - argh, freak out time again. I spent a day with a macbeth colour chart and managed with a lot of tweaking to get their colours and contrast to match quite well, which is good enough for what we do, and way better than they looked out of the factory.
...i wish there was a 'colour theory for dummies' guide somewhere
Phew. So I'm not the only one who doesn't understand all this?
Early on, when I started regularly calibrating my monitor, I was pleased that the prints I was getting back matched the colours as seen through Photoshop etc. It also became clear, that images viewed with for example, Windows Image Viewer, were a different colour.
I tried to understand why PS etc could use the colour profiles determined by the calibration device but other applications couldn't. I gave up and just accepted the fact that they were different. I'm much happier now ...
Early on, when I started regularly calibrating my monitor, I was pleased that the prints I was getting back matched the colours as seen through Photoshop etc. It also became clear, that images viewed with for example, Windows Image Viewer, were a different colour.
I tried to understand why PS etc could use the colour profiles determined by the calibration device but other applications couldn't. I gave up and just accepted the fact that they were different. I'm much happier now ...
I also ended up on the edge of madness trying to get my printer to be the same as my calibrated screen. Consumed a pack of phot paper in the process...
In short screens are limited in their colour range/graduation (sRGB) and printers can output a wider range and the camera can take even wider range (Adobe RGB). So depending upon how the screen and printer adjust or display those colours is what shifts the colours. Files can be assigned with colour range codes embedded in the file (sRGB, AdobeRGB etc) and software can read that and convert or not as the case may be. Therefore, there is a fourth variable in the mix - the viewer software and maybe a fifth the person viewing may be colourblind!!
Anyway, shooting in sRGB (cheaper cameras will use this, more expensive give a choice) and processing in sRGB will produce the most consistent results. Web images are sRGB too.
Shooting in AdobeRGB will produce better results but its hardly noticeable.
I would download a sample picture file from the 'net that doesn't have colour data embedded in it. In other words a calibrated pic and see what you get with that.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=test...
Calibrating each element in the sequence, Camera, Screen, viewer and printer would help but it’s expensive. I ended up borrowing £300 worth of kit to calibrate the two most important elements - my screen and printer. It sorted it but it didn’t make major changes to anything. I also discovered that my camera settings were putting a warm cast on the pictures (the portrait setting was OK for skin but not white fabric!). Hence my suggestion to use a calibrated picture.
In short screens are limited in their colour range/graduation (sRGB) and printers can output a wider range and the camera can take even wider range (Adobe RGB). So depending upon how the screen and printer adjust or display those colours is what shifts the colours. Files can be assigned with colour range codes embedded in the file (sRGB, AdobeRGB etc) and software can read that and convert or not as the case may be. Therefore, there is a fourth variable in the mix - the viewer software and maybe a fifth the person viewing may be colourblind!!
Anyway, shooting in sRGB (cheaper cameras will use this, more expensive give a choice) and processing in sRGB will produce the most consistent results. Web images are sRGB too.
Shooting in AdobeRGB will produce better results but its hardly noticeable.
I would download a sample picture file from the 'net that doesn't have colour data embedded in it. In other words a calibrated pic and see what you get with that.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=test...
Calibrating each element in the sequence, Camera, Screen, viewer and printer would help but it’s expensive. I ended up borrowing £300 worth of kit to calibrate the two most important elements - my screen and printer. It sorted it but it didn’t make major changes to anything. I also discovered that my camera settings were putting a warm cast on the pictures (the portrait setting was OK for skin but not white fabric!). Hence my suggestion to use a calibrated picture.
Edited by ian in lancs on Thursday 28th January 07:03
All my colour management problems went away when I bought my iMac. Whatever I see on my screen looks the same regardless of what I do. Even prints on the Epson R2880 look great. I don't know why. Is it a mac thing? probably. Needless to say the time saved has made the extra cost of mac ownership seem worthwhile.
(no I'm not anti PC - I use both and love both!!)
(no I'm not anti PC - I use both and love both!!)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff