If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
This is on a Mac, BTW.
I have a large number of scanned slides bearing a color profile (assigned by the scanner) that gives iPhoto fits; I'd like to change it. Using ColorSync, I can "assign" a different profile, or I can "match" to a different profile, but I do not understand which I should do, or (more importantly) what the difference is between the two. Further, I don't know which profile I should move to: "Generic RGB"; "sRGB"; or what? The images are my own, and will not be displayed on the web. I'd like to keep them at the highest possible "accuracy" (whatever that means). A whole lot of googling has produced many descriptions of *how* to do these things, but nothing on *why* or *which*. Can anybody shed some light, please? Isaac |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
In article ], isw
wrote: This is on a Mac, BTW. I have a large number of scanned slides bearing a color profile (assigned by the scanner) that gives iPhoto fits; I'd like to change it. iphoto does weird things with colour profiles. use something else if possible. what profile did the scanner give it? Using ColorSync, I can "assign" a different profile, or I can "match" to a different profile, but I do not understand which I should do, or (more importantly) what the difference is between the two. Further, I don't know which profile I should move to: "Generic RGB"; "sRGB"; or what? The images are my own, and will not be displayed on the web. I'd like to keep them at the highest possible "accuracy" (whatever that means). assign means just that, you are assigning a profile to an image, which says 'this data is in profile z.' the data is not changed, it just tells the system how to interpret the data. if you assign a different profile, your image will look different. match is probably the same as what photoshop calls convert to, and it means it will take the existing data and convert that data to a new profile, using the assigned profile as a source profile, if any. the data will be changed and the image should look roughly the same, subject to any limitations in the destination profile. A whole lot of googling has produced many descriptions of *how* to do these things, but nothing on *why* or *which*. Can anybody shed some light, please? pun intended? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article ], isw wrote: This is on a Mac, BTW. I have a large number of scanned slides bearing a color profile (assigned by the scanner) that gives iPhoto fits; I'd like to change it. iphoto does weird things with colour profiles. use something else if possible. Not possible. Plus, what I've been able to understand from reading about iPhoto and profiles is that honoring profiles is a *good* thing for color accuracy. what profile did the scanner give it? Microtek 4800 Scanner / Positive Film / Present Why that annoys iPhoto I don't know, but the result is that when I import an image bearing that profile, the thumbnail winds up being a black rectangle. I suppose it's possible that there's some aspect of that profile that is "wrong" somehow, but I have no way to fix it, so just eliminating it seems like a good solution. Using ColorSync, I can "assign" a different profile, or I can "match" to a different profile, but I do not understand which I should do, or (more importantly) what the difference is between the two. Further, I don't know which profile I should move to: "Generic RGB"; "sRGB"; or what? The images are my own, and will not be displayed on the web. I'd like to keep them at the highest possible "accuracy" (whatever that means). assign means just that, you are assigning a profile to an image, which says 'this data is in profile z.' the data is not changed, it just tells the system how to interpret the data. if you assign a different profile, your image will look different. Ah. Then using "assign" to get rid of the problematical profile sounds like a mistake, since the result would be that the profile would be "lying" about the image. I'd guess you'd use "assign" if you knew what an image's profile *should* be, but that's not what was in the metadata. match is probably the same as what photoshop calls convert to, and it means it will take the existing data and convert that data to a new profile, using the assigned profile as a source profile, if any. the data will be changed and the image should look roughly the same, subject to any limitations in the destination profile. So if I do not want to change the appearance but I *do* want to change the profile, "match" sounds like the way to go. Now, what is a good profile to move to, assuming I want the widest reasonable color gamut on CRT or flat-panel displays but NOT involving the web or browsers? (What I mean is, showing my images to friends and relatives on a computer or digital TV). I *think* I understand that sRGB is a rather limited gamut, for example. What about ProPhoto? Using colorSync Utility, it seems to be nearly the only gamut that's larger than the scanner's. Isaac |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
In article ], isw
wrote: I have a large number of scanned slides bearing a color profile (assigned by the scanner) that gives iPhoto fits; I'd like to change it. iphoto does weird things with colour profiles. use something else if possible. Not possible. Plus, what I've been able to understand from reading about iPhoto and profiles is that honoring profiles is a *good* thing for color accuracy. it's a very good thing, except iphoto doesn't quite do it right. what profile did the scanner give it? Microtek 4800 Scanner / Positive Film / Present Why that annoys iPhoto I don't know, but the result is that when I import an image bearing that profile, the thumbnail winds up being a black rectangle. I suppose it's possible that there's some aspect of that profile that is "wrong" somehow, but I have no way to fix it, so just eliminating it seems like a good solution. that's worse than i thought. usually the colours are a little off if it's the wrong profile, not black. there's a profile first aid check in color sync utility - what does that say? what happens if you try other software, such as photoshop, preview, or even safari? Ah. Then using "assign" to get rid of the problematical profile sounds like a mistake, since the result would be that the profile would be "lying" about the image. I'd guess you'd use "assign" if you knew what an image's profile *should* be, but that's not what was in the metadata. except if that profile is corrupt or the software you are using is buggy. if another profile makes it look better, what difference does it make? after all, that's what matters not what is technically 'correct.' although the correct profile should be the one that looks the best, that's not always the case. Now, what is a good profile to move to, assuming I want the widest reasonable color gamut on CRT or flat-panel displays but NOT involving the web or browsers? (What I mean is, showing my images to friends and relatives on a computer or digital TV). for showing on a screen, srgb is probably fine. do your friends have expensive eizo lcd displays that can display adobe rgb? probably not. if their displays can only show srgb, why bother using something wider? I *think* I understand that sRGB is a rather limited gamut, for example. What about ProPhoto? Using colorSync Utility, it seems to be nearly the only gamut that's larger than the scanner's. srgb is fine for most things, but if you really want to edge out the absolute best, you want adobe rgb or better, however, once it's scanned, you aren't going to gain much by picking a wider space. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
In article ,
nospam wrote: In article ], isw wrote: I have a large number of scanned slides bearing a color profile (assigned by the scanner) that gives iPhoto fits; I'd like to change it. iphoto does weird things with colour profiles. use something else if possible. Not possible. Plus, what I've been able to understand from reading about iPhoto and profiles is that honoring profiles is a *good* thing for color accuracy. it's a very good thing, except iphoto doesn't quite do it right. what profile did the scanner give it? Microtek 4800 Scanner / Positive Film / Present Why that annoys iPhoto I don't know, but the result is that when I import an image bearing that profile, the thumbnail winds up being a black rectangle. I suppose it's possible that there's some aspect of that profile that is "wrong" somehow, but I have no way to fix it, so just eliminating it seems like a good solution. that's worse than i thought. usually the colours are a little off if it's the wrong profile, not black. there's a profile first aid check in color sync utility - what does that say? what happens if you try other software, such as photoshop, preview, or even safari? ColorSync doesn't complain, nor do other apps, except to ask if it should be converted. iPhoto displays the full-sale image just fine too; it's just the thumbnail that's black. Real problem is, when I delete those images so I can change the profile and reimport, then emptying the iPhoto trash almost always causes a crash, and sometimes requires a database rebuild, which takes several hours. Ah. Then using "assign" to get rid of the problematical profile sounds like a mistake, since the result would be that the profile would be "lying" about the image. I'd guess you'd use "assign" if you knew what an image's profile *should* be, but that's not what was in the metadata. except if that profile is corrupt or the software you are using is buggy. if another profile makes it look better, what difference does it make? after all, that's what matters not what is technically 'correct.' although the correct profile should be the one that looks the best, that's not always the case. I understand that, but I also *think* I understand that once an image has been shoehorned into a limited color gamut, there's no way to recover what's been lost. Now, what is a good profile to move to, assuming I want the widest reasonable color gamut on CRT or flat-panel displays but NOT involving the web or browsers? (What I mean is, showing my images to friends and relatives on a computer or digital TV). for showing on a screen, srgb is probably fine. do your friends have expensive eizo lcd displays that can display adobe rgb? probably not. if their displays can only show srgb, why bother using something wider? Because I expect that in future, even commodity displays are going to have a wider gamut than present-day high-end ones; don't you? I *think* I understand that sRGB is a rather limited gamut, for example. What about ProPhoto? Using colorSync Utility, it seems to be nearly the only gamut that's larger than the scanner's. srgb is fine for most things, but if you really want to edge out the absolute best, you want adobe rgb or better, however, once it's scanned, you aren't going to gain much by picking a wider space. According to ColorSync Utility, the existing profile (Microtek 4800 Scanner), is considerably larger then either sRGB or AdobeRGB, but smaller than ProPhoto. What I'm interested in, is not throwing anything away that might be valuable later, say on next-generation displays. These are family images I'm preparing for my kids; they may well be viewed in 50 years or more. Isaac |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:11:08 -0800, isw wrote:
This is on a Mac, BTW. I have a large number of scanned slides bearing a color profile (assigned by the scanner) that gives iPhoto fits; I'd like to change it. Using ColorSync, I can "assign" a different profile, or I can "match" to a different profile, but I do not understand which I should do, or (more importantly) what the difference is between the two. Further, I don't know which profile I should move to: "Generic RGB"; "sRGB"; or what? The images are my own, and will not be displayed on the web. I'd like to keep them at the highest possible "accuracy" (whatever that means). A whole lot of googling has produced many descriptions of *how* to do these things, but nothing on *why* or *which*. Can anybody shed some light, please? I've seen the other give and take on this and believe a fundamental concept is missing here. The profile assigned to the image by the scanner contains the information of how the colors mapped by the scanner correspond to the reference color space. A color space aware app is needed to read this. This then gets translated into the working color space of the app. Finally a monitor or printer profile is used to again translate this into the monitor or printer color space. Simply assigning a different color profile is not the answer. You need to convert to a different profile and then resave that image with the new profile. Not knowing anything about iPhoto I don't know if "match" to a different profile is what you want here, but suspect it might be. Check the help file for this function. Note that by doing this you will actually changing the color data in the image (IIRC) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
In article ,
me wrote: On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:11:08 -0800, isw wrote: This is on a Mac, BTW. I have a large number of scanned slides bearing a color profile (assigned by the scanner) that gives iPhoto fits; I'd like to change it. Using ColorSync, I can "assign" a different profile, or I can "match" to a different profile, but I do not understand which I should do, or (more importantly) what the difference is between the two. Further, I don't know which profile I should move to: "Generic RGB"; "sRGB"; or what? The images are my own, and will not be displayed on the web. I'd like to keep them at the highest possible "accuracy" (whatever that means). A whole lot of googling has produced many descriptions of *how* to do these things, but nothing on *why* or *which*. Can anybody shed some light, please? I've seen the other give and take on this and believe a fundamental concept is missing here. The profile assigned to the image by the scanner contains the information of how the colors mapped by the scanner correspond to the reference color space. A color space aware app is needed to read this. This then gets translated into the working color space of the app. Finally a monitor or printer profile is used to again translate this into the monitor or printer color space. Simply assigning a different color profile is not the answer. You need to convert to a different profile and then resave that image with the new profile. Not knowing anything about iPhoto I don't know if "match" to a different profile is what you want here, but suspect it might be. Check the help file for this function. Note that by doing this you will actually changing the color data in the image (IIRC) I'm OP, and I agree with what you've said, now that I finally understand it. Now, the remaining question is, what is the preferred profile to change to? Considering that there will certainly be improvements in the gamut capabilities of display devices in the future, I'm thinking that sRGB is probably too constraining. How about ProPhoto? ISaac |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:45:48 -0800, isw wrote:
I'm OP, and I agree with what you've said, now that I finally understand it. Now, the remaining question is, what is the preferred profile to change to? Considering that there will certainly be improvements in the gamut capabilities of display devices in the future, I'm thinking that sRGB is probably too constraining. How about ProPhoto? First, what matters is the content of your images, not necessarily what colorspace they are in. Even though the scanners color space may be larger than sRGB or AdobeRGB, what matters is the actual colors contained. Can iPhoto show out of gamut colors? You could then see what colors are contained/maintained in a given color space. You also haven't mentioned what format you are saving in. A wider color space may bring about issues given the wider space must fit into a given amount of storage bits and hence there may be less graduations of a given color available. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
In article ,
me wrote: On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:45:48 -0800, isw wrote: I'm OP, and I agree with what you've said, now that I finally understand it. Now, the remaining question is, what is the preferred profile to change to? Considering that there will certainly be improvements in the gamut capabilities of display devices in the future, I'm thinking that sRGB is probably too constraining. How about ProPhoto? First, what matters is the content of your images, not necessarily what colorspace they are in. Even though the scanners color space may be larger than sRGB or AdobeRGB, what matters is the actual colors contained. It is my understanding (which may be incorrect), that when an image is "matched" to a different profile, the values of the pixels are "corrected" to agree with the new profile. If that is so, then once an image is "matched" to a low-gamut profile like sRGB, then it's not possible to recover the lost information, even in theory. Can iPhoto show out of gamut colors? You could then see what colors are contained/maintained in a given color space. I don't think so. But that's not the issue. I don't care whether iPhoto (or any other specific image handling app) can display the full gamut of the images; what I want is to not lose something that might be usable on *future* imaging equipment, whether a better screen, or a printer, or whatever. You also haven't mentioned what format you are saving in. A wider color space may bring about issues given the wider space must fit into a given amount of storage bits and hence there may be less graduations of a given color available. Saving as "high quality" JPEGs; these are 35mm slides, scanned at 4800 ppi on a scanner that *claimed* to be able to handle it. But there's nothing about the JPEG encoding process that forces a restricted gamut. Storage space is not an issue, but I need to deal with iPhoto's problem with the scanner's profile, and I don't want to throw anything away in the process. Isaac |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Assigning" vs. "Matching" a color profile
"isw" wrote in message
]... In article , me wrote: You also haven't mentioned what format you are saving in. A wider color space may bring about issues given the wider space must fit into a given amount of storage bits and hence there may be less graduations of a given color available. Saving as "high quality" JPEGs; these are 35mm slides, scanned at 4800 ppi on a scanner that *claimed* to be able to handle it. But there's nothing about the JPEG encoding process that forces a restricted gamut. Storage space is not an issue, but I need to deal with iPhoto's problem with the scanner's profile, and I don't want to throw anything away in the process. Then you should archive the scans as they are, without converting the colorspace. Your choices for JPEG are 8 bit and 16 bit. As he pointed out, converting to a larger gamut requires more bits to maintain the same gradation in the larger space as 8 bits in the smaller color space. A lossless conversion will double the size of each file in the new colorspace. Would you mind posting or emailing a small crop of a 4800 ppi scan? I have never seen a scan that fine. Can your scanning service handle medium format and sheet film sizes? What technology do they use? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
Album 26 Special "January 2008-3" "Lumières d'Opale" | Lumières d'Opale | Photographing Nature | 0 | February 7th 08 12:32 PM |
Album 24 Special "January 2008-1" "Lumières d'Opale" | Lumières d'Opale | Fine Art, Framing and Display | 0 | January 8th 08 05:20 PM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 09:00 PM |