A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Color management in Windows



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old February 22nd 17, 03:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Color management in Windows

On 2/21/2017 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:27:17 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/20/2017 5:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:47:14 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/20/2017 2:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:27 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/19/2017 10:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:36:36 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/19/2017 5:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:43:49 -0500, Neil
wrote:
[...]
It may help to narrow things down if you could perform some basic tests.
For example, if you have access to a color calibration file (basically a
chart that prints scales and a gamut wheel) and reference print, you can
see whether the printer is reproducing that chart correctly. If you have
a colorimeter, you can measure the printed output and compare that with
what you see on the screen, understanding that the CMYK+ gamut will have
some differences from the RGB gamut.

Some settings seem to be more or less right as far as color is
concerned, but that is not my present concern. It's the fact that
changes in settings cause changes in color in ways I do not
understand.

Can you give some specifics? What settings? What kinds of changes do you
see?

Basically changes in hue and saturation.

Different color space settings will result in different color gamuts in
a print, which is to be expected.

Yep. What is Windows doing in this respect?

Nothing new, AFAICT. I hope you're not expecting an OS to make all color
spaces look the same in print. That would only happen for a very narrow
range of colors and intensities.

It's doing something new since Vista. That's where all kinds of bells
and whistles were added and I can find nothing which tells me how it
works.

I'm not seeing any of these issues on my systems, so I can only hope
that you find out what is going on with yours.


Are you printing with more than one color space? I mean 'color space',
not just printer profile.

Yes, I do use color spaces dependent on the type of job. My work also
requires me to calibrate my proofing printers to match the final output
devices, so "standard" printer profiles aren't of much use to me.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #142  
Old February 22nd 17, 03:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Color management in Windows

In article , PeterN
wrote:

At a more advanced facility (probably not Costco) you might be able to
specify wide gamut printing using the colorspace you specify and
specialty papers or media you might specify. Those will also have to
have matched icc profiles.


and they'll tell you exactly what to do with the images if you aren't
sure.


Fighting temptation.


for your images, i know what i'd tell you to do with them.
  #143  
Old February 22nd 17, 03:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Color management in Windows

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


That statement encompasses what you have just written about
"photoshop's conversion to its own working space" which is set by
'EditColorsettings'. This gives you the choice of ProPhoto plus a
zillion others. But I expect you already know tat.

no it doesn't, and that suggests that you're *very* confused about
what's going on and what needs to happen.

Nothing to do with what "needs" to happen What I said is absolutely
correct. Whether or not any of the available settings makes sense is
another matter entirely.


while it might be technically correct (although not exactly), the
reality is that it's entirely separate from the two menu commands peter
mentioned.


But PeterN wasn't mentioning them as menu commands.


yes he was, given that he's mentioned using those on multiple occasions.

He raised them as
things which can be done, as functions. Whether you do it by clicking
a button on the window or by letting the machine do the work is quite
another matter.


nope.

photoshop is designed to do the proper thing in normal use. you're
trying to micromanage every step without fully understanding what each
step does.


You are wriggling. Clutching at straws in an attempt to get off a hook
of your own making.


nope.

at the end of the day, you are getting results you do not like, so
something is *not* set correctly. the goal is to find out what that is
and fix it.


Changing the subject away from your own blooper.


no blooper whatsoever.

ask yourself again who is having problems with prints and who is not.

then ask yourself if you want to resolve it or not.

you *can* override what photoshop does when necessary, but opening a
raw image (or jpeg) and then printing it to a local printer is not one
of them. in fact, that's one of the most common use cases there is,
which means it should work as expected with little to no fuss.


'Color Space' remember? I was raising questions about the whys and
wherefors of the way that the Windows Color Management System handles
different color spaces for printing.


you're overthinking things.

are you planning on writing a windows colour management utility or do
you want good prints?

at this point, who knows how you have things set, so start with
resetting everything and start from known defaults:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/preferences.html
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/he...s-lightroom.ht
ml

next, open an image (raw or jpeg), adjust onscreen as desired, then
print as you normally would. let *either* the printer *or* photoshop
manage colours (not both). evaluate results.


I'm way past that.


apparently not, given that you're not getting results you want.

don't worry about converting/assigning, printer space, srgb/argb or
anything else at this time. save that for later. stop overthinking
things. photoshop (or lightroom) has you covered.

what you'll more than likely find is that the defaults do a damned fine
job.


What goes on in your little brain? This whole thread exists because it
is NOT doing a fine job.


only because you're doing something wrong.

the goal is to identify why and then remedy it.

the best way to do that is start over from scratch, leaving things at
their defaults, and work your way up, *not* dive in head first and
start tweaking every option.

you also didn't say which books you've read, but anything by fraser or
schewe is good. if you have any books by marguilis, the best thing to
do is to use them to build a fire to save on heating costs. that's
probably low this time of year for you, so maybe do that in a couple
of months when it gets cold.


In no particular order:


3) Color Management - Fraser, Murphy & Bunting
5) The Digital Negative - Jeff Schewe
6) The Digital Print - Jeff Schewe


pay attention to those.
  #144  
Old February 25th 17, 04:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Color management in Windows

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:06:28 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have a camera (Nikon D750) with a color space that encompasses
AdobeRGB. I use software (Photoshop etc) with an enormous Profile
Connection Space (PCS) which can variously swallow or spit out
virtually any real world color space. I have a printer (Epson Sure
Color P800) which can accept images in the conventional sRB and the
wider AdobeRGB. I now have a screen with a gamut which is AdobeRGB for
all practical purposes.

So - whacko! - I can now photograph, see, edit and print images in
more glorious color than ever before. Except that I don't seem to be
able to, at least without experiencing color distortions which result
in garish colors. At this stage I pointed the finger squarely at
Windows which I have many times read is limited to an sRGB color
space.

But surely this can't be so. This is the 21st century and the days of
the kerosine-fired magic lantern are nearly gone. Surely Microsoft
have seen the future that is coming?

I have been exploring Windows color management and I have found the
the that since Windows 2000, Windows has used the Image Color
Management (ICM) which as far as I can tell *is* limited to the sRGB
color space by default. See http://tinyurl.com/j938m4m or
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...(v=vs.85).aspx

However, with Windows Vista, MS introduced the Windows Color System
(WCS). According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Color_System
"Windows Color System features a Color Infrastructure and Translation
Engine (CITE) at its core" which sounds remarkably like like a working
color space and color translation engine supplied by Microsoft.

I haven't yet made sense of what little information I have been able
to find about this but it sounds as though whether or not CMS is used
depends on the supplier of image processing softwa do nothing and
your color processing will fall back on the default sRGB. However if
the software provider supplies the necessary software and profiles you
can use any color space you like.

If my understanding is correct it is likely that whether or not I have
access to a wider color space than sRGB depens on Adobe providing and
utilising the necessary software.

The question is, am I right or have I got myself into a knot
somewhere?


I didn't have a knot but I did have a tangle. I discovered that I had
Photoshop set not to Perceptual but Relative Colorimetric. That was
not my preferred choice. However ...

I decided to make a clean pass and an undoubtedly Adobe RGB test
image. My D750 is set for Adobe RGB (and I don't know whether or not
this affects raw images) so I made up a test image from four recent
photographs. See
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...st%20Print.jpg I picked
the images I did as I wanted to explore the corners of the RGB color
triangle.

I then made prints on A4 size Epson Premium Glossy paper using the
following protocols:

(1) Photoshop Manages colors.
(2) Printer manages colors, printer set to sRGB
(3) " " " " " Adobe RGB
(4) " " " " " ICM
(5) " " " " " Photo Enhance

These were all unintentionally run in relative colorimetric mode.

All five prints were different and there were clear winners and losers
as far as the finished images were concerned. I spent some time poring
over the images with a magnifying glass and in the end I could not
really tell whether I was looking at gamut variations or merely
differences in saturation. Then I recalled that I had
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...RGB_colors.png
which contains all 24 bit colors. I decided to use this as a test
image and I ran all five of the tests listed above as before. By using
multiple print passes I was able to get five tests on three sheets of
paper. It was at this stage that I discovered that I had been running
in relative colorimetric mode rather than perceptual.

I muttered a rude word and ran the tests all over again. Anyway, you
can find scans or the results in the following URLs. You will have to
be patient, they are slow to download but are most edifying when you
have them up on different tabs on your browser.

First, the perceptual intent.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Percep%201.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Percep%202.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Percep%203.jpg

.... and now the relative colorimetric
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...93/Rel%201.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...93/Rel%202.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...93/Rel%203.jpg

It's clear that perceptual intent is the way to go. It's the only one
I will discuss in detail but more or less the same comments generally
apply to the relative colorimetric prints.

It's also clear is that there are marked differences between the
various outputs. When I ran my test image
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...st%20Print.jpg I found
that there is not much to choose between Photoshop managing colors and
the printer managing colors when set to sRGB.

Using the printer to manage colours when set to Adobe RGB produces a
slightly subdued image. The colours are not quite so intense and there
are subtle shifts in hue (as one would expect). It is noticeable that
the Adobe RGB yellows have less red/orange in them.

Setting the printer to ICM produced images which seemed slightly dark
and subdued.

Setting the printer to Photo Enhance produced an image as bright and
cheerful as the original. I noticed that the in the image at the
top-right the grain in the floor stood out more clearly than in any of
the others and I suspect that Photo Enhance includes a number of
image-manipulating tricks in addition to playing around with the
color.

The prints of the test image were most enlightening. Letting Photoshop
manage color produced a print with what was clearly the highest level
of saturation. When the printer was managing colors setting the
printer to AdobeRGB produced noticeably greener greens than when it
was set to sRGB.

ICM produced a slightly grayer version of Adobe RGB while Photo
Enhance produced a print with high luminosity.

When Photoshop managed colors or when the printer was set to either
sRGB or Photo Enhance, or even Adobe RGB there was a noticeable touch
of yellow at the bottom right-hand corner of most of the cells
comprising the test image. When Photoshop managed colors or when the
printer was set to sRGB the yellow was associated with a diagonal
streak running from the bottom right to the top left of each cell.
Clearly the merging of the R, G and B to make intermediate colors is
not straight forward.

The image printed when the printer is set to ICM is free of all these
artifacts and the cells appear to be a straight forward linear
blending of the R, G and B.

There are all sorts of conclusions which can be drawn from all of
this, not the least of which is that if one wishes to print to a
larger gamut it is not just a matter of taking an existing image and
printing. It is likely that the color and lighting of the whole image
will have to be reworked.

More later (much later) :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #145  
Old February 25th 17, 05:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Color management in Windows

On 2017-02-25 03:26:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:06:28 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have a camera (Nikon D750) with a color space that encompasses
AdobeRGB. I use software (Photoshop etc) with an enormous Profile
Connection Space (PCS) which can variously swallow or spit out
virtually any real world color space. I have a printer (Epson Sure
Color P800) which can accept images in the conventional sRB and the
wider AdobeRGB. I now have a screen with a gamut which is AdobeRGB for
all practical purposes.

So - whacko! - I can now photograph, see, edit and print images in
more glorious color than ever before. Except that I don't seem to be
able to, at least without experiencing color distortions which result
in garish colors. At this stage I pointed the finger squarely at
Windows which I have many times read is limited to an sRGB color
space.

But surely this can't be so. This is the 21st century and the days of
the kerosine-fired magic lantern are nearly gone. Surely Microsoft
have seen the future that is coming?

I have been exploring Windows color management and I have found the
the that since Windows 2000, Windows has used the Image Color
Management (ICM) which as far as I can tell *is* limited to the sRGB
color space by default. See http://tinyurl.com/j938m4m or
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...(v=vs.85).aspx


However,

with Windows Vista, MS introduced the Windows Color System
(WCS). According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Color_System
"Windows Color System features a Color Infrastructure and Translation
Engine (CITE) at its core" which sounds remarkably like like a working
color space and color translation engine supplied by Microsoft.

I haven't yet made sense of what little information I have been able
to find about this but it sounds as though whether or not CMS is used
depends on the supplier of image processing softwa do nothing and
your color processing will fall back on the default sRGB. However if
the software provider supplies the necessary software and profiles you
can use any color space you like.

If my understanding is correct it is likely that whether or not I have
access to a wider color space than sRGB depens on Adobe providing and
utilising the necessary software.

The question is, am I right or have I got myself into a knot
somewhere?


I didn't have a knot but I did have a tangle. I discovered that I had
Photoshop set not to Perceptual but Relative Colorimetric. That was
not my preferred choice. However ...

I decided to make a clean pass and an undoubtedly Adobe RGB test
image. My D750 is set for Adobe RGB (and I don't know whether or not
this affects raw images) so I made up a test image from four recent
photographs. See
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...st%20Print.jpg I picked
the images I did as I wanted to explore the corners of the RGB color
triangle.

I then made prints on A4 size Epson Premium Glossy paper using the
following protocols:

(1) Photoshop Manages colors.
(2) Printer manages colors, printer set to sRGB
(3) " " " " " Adobe RGB
(4) " " " " " ICM
(5) " " " " " Photo Enhance

These were all unintentionally run in relative colorimetric mode.

All five prints were different and there were clear winners and losers
as far as the finished images were concerned. I spent some time poring
over the images with a magnifying glass and in the end I could not
really tell whether I was looking at gamut variations or merely
differences in saturation. Then I recalled that I had
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...RGB_colors.png
which contains all 24 bit colors. I decided to use this as a test
image and I ran all five of the tests listed above as before. By using
multiple print passes I was able to get five tests on three sheets of
paper. It was at this stage that I discovered that I had been running
in relative colorimetric mode rather than perceptual.

I muttered a rude word and ran the tests all over again. Anyway, you
can find scans or the results in the following URLs. You will have to
be patient, they are slow to download but are most edifying when you
have them up on different tabs on your browser.

First, the perceptual intent.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Percep%201.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Percep%202.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Percep%203.jpg

... and now the relative colorimetric
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...93/Rel%201.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...93/Rel%202.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...93/Rel%203.jpg

It's clear that perceptual intent is the way to go. It's the only one
I will discuss in detail but more or less the same comments generally
apply to the relative colorimetric prints.

It's also clear is that there are marked differences between the
various outputs. When I ran my test image
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...st%20Print.jpg I found
that there is not much to choose between Photoshop managing colors and
the printer managing colors when set to sRGB.

Using the printer to manage colours when set to Adobe RGB produces a
slightly subdued image. The colours are not quite so intense and there
are subtle shifts in hue (as one would expect). It is noticeable that
the Adobe RGB yellows have less red/orange in them.

Setting the printer to ICM produced images which seemed slightly dark
and subdued.

Setting the printer to Photo Enhance produced an image as bright and
cheerful as the original. I noticed that the in the image at the
top-right the grain in the floor stood out more clearly than in any of
the others and I suspect that Photo Enhance includes a number of
image-manipulating tricks in addition to playing around with the
color.

The prints of the test image were most enlightening. Letting Photoshop
manage color produced a print with what was clearly the highest level
of saturation. When the printer was managing colors setting the
printer to AdobeRGB produced noticeably greener greens than when it
was set to sRGB.

ICM produced a slightly grayer version of Adobe RGB while Photo
Enhance produced a print with high luminosity.

When Photoshop managed colors or when the printer was set to either
sRGB or Photo Enhance, or even Adobe RGB there was a noticeable touch
of yellow at the bottom right-hand corner of most of the cells
comprising the test image. When Photoshop managed colors or when the
printer was set to sRGB the yellow was associated with a diagonal
streak running from the bottom right to the top left of each cell.
Clearly the merging of the R, G and B to make intermediate colors is
not straight forward.

The image printed when the printer is set to ICM is free of all these
artifacts and the cells appear to be a straight forward linear
blending of the R, G and B.

There are all sorts of conclusions which can be drawn from all of
this, not the least of which is that if one wishes to print to a
larger gamut it is not just a matter of taking an existing image and
printing. It is likely that the color and lighting of the whole image
will have to be reworked.

More later (much later) :-)


In the light of your discovery, the following might be of interest. The
thing I would take away from all of that is, it is going to be your
image which dictates which of the intent options is going to work best
for any particular print. Typically "Absolute Colorimetric" with many
images can deliver so much out of gamut that the resulting print can
seem insultingly damaged. I have found that for most of my prints
"Perceptual" delivers the most pleasing results, and while "Relative"
can deliver nice results with specific images, it mostly renders
results with colors alien to my intent.

http://www.color-management-guide.com/conversion-mode-perceptual-relative-colorimetric-rendering-intent.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm
http://dba.med.sc.edu/price/irf/Adobe_tg/manage/renderintent.html
--


Regards,

Savageduck

  #146  
Old March 30th 17, 01:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Color management in Windows

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:06:28 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have a camera (Nikon D750) with a color space that encompasses
AdobeRGB. I use software (Photoshop etc) with an enormous Profile
Connection Space (PCS) which can variously swallow or spit out
virtually any real world color space. I have a printer (Epson Sure
Color P800) which can accept images in the conventional sRB and the
wider AdobeRGB. I now have a screen with a gamut which is AdobeRGB for
all practical purposes.

So - whacko! - I can now photograph, see, edit and print images in
more glorious color than ever before. Except that I don't seem to be
able to, at least without experiencing color distortions which result
in garish colors. At this stage I pointed the finger squarely at
Windows which I have many times read is limited to an sRGB color
space.

But surely this can't be so. This is the 21st century and the days of
the kerosine-fired magic lantern are nearly gone. Surely Microsoft
have seen the future that is coming?

I have been exploring Windows color management and I have found the
the that since Windows 2000, Windows has used the Image Color
Management (ICM) which as far as I can tell *is* limited to the sRGB
color space by default. See http://tinyurl.com/j938m4m or
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...(v=vs.85).aspx

However, with Windows Vista, MS introduced the Windows Color System
(WCS). According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Color_System
"Windows Color System features a Color Infrastructure and Translation
Engine (CITE) at its core" which sounds remarkably like like a working
color space and color translation engine supplied by Microsoft.

I haven't yet made sense of what little information I have been able
to find about this but it sounds as though whether or not CMS is used
depends on the supplier of image processing softwa do nothing and
your color processing will fall back on the default sRGB. However if
the software provider supplies the necessary software and profiles you
can use any color space you like.

If my understanding is correct it is likely that whether or not I have
access to a wider color space than sRGB depens on Adobe providing and
utilising the necessary software.

The question is, am I right or have I got myself into a knot
somewhere?



I've continued to pursue this matter and while I haven't got to the
bottom of the way that Windows handles color I may have got closer to
the root of my problem.

It seems that lower priced wide gamut monitors us GB-LED technology
and this, unless properly calibrated gives rise to garish greens and
reds. Calibrating properly seems to entail the use of an i1 which
means that my Spyder5 won't do. See the AnandaTech review of the Dell
U3014 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6890/d...014-lcd-review for an
explanation of how it all works.

"Of course you also have the assumption that more colors = better,
right? Well, unfortunately that isn’t the case. If you only have a
larger gamut and not software that understands how to use that
gamut, what you get are colors that are further outside of the
gamut than they should be. Greens are too green, reds are too red,
and everything looks like a badly calibrated OLED smartphone.
Anyone buying something like the U3014 is going to need to have
accurate colors in any colorspace, and the Dell offers an sRGB mode
as well."

No doubt there will be more to follow.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #147  
Old March 30th 17, 11:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Color management in Windows

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:15:35 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I've continued to pursue this matter and while I haven't got to the
bottom of the way that Windows handles color I may have got closer to
the root of my problem.

It seems that lower priced wide gamut monitors us GB-LED technology
and this, unless properly calibrated gives rise to garish greens and
reds. Calibrating properly seems to entail the use of an i1 which
means that my Spyder5 won't do. See the AnandaTech review of the Dell
U3014 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6890/d...014-lcd-review for an
explanation of how it all works.

"Of course you also have the assumption that more colors = better,
right? Well, unfortunately that isn’t the case. If you only have a
larger gamut and not software that understands how to use that
gamut, what you get are colors that are further outside of the
gamut than they should be. Greens are too green, reds are too red,
and everything looks like a badly calibrated OLED smartphone.
Anyone buying something like the U3014 is going to need to have
accurate colors in any colorspace, and the Dell offers an sRGB mode
as well."

No doubt there will be more to follow.


And there is. See
https://pcmonitors.info/articles/the...ed-backlights/
--

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
color management use-cases Dale[_4_] In The Darkroom 2 February 1st 14 09:13 AM
Color Management-Color Spyder ____ Digital SLR Cameras 16 October 12th 08 08:13 AM
Color Management Process Gordo Digital Photography 24 January 5th 06 01:35 PM
So confused about color management Help! paul Digital Photography 14 January 30th 05 06:16 PM
Color Management Gary Eickmeier Digital Photography 64 November 30th 04 01:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.