Color management in Windows

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Not in the course of my testing. I'm working from raw files.


RAW files are converted so that you can work with them.

no.

You have to have a color space when you work with them. You have to
nominate one for PS.

peter is concerned about assign versus convert. that doesn't come into
play. when you open the file, it's handled *for* you.

I was responding to your "no need for either one". There IS a need a
need for one of them and I was telling you why.

and i'm telling you the difference between what he's saying and what
you're saying.

he's referring to the two menu choices, assign & convert, at the bottom
of the edit menu.

what you're referring to is photoshop's conversion to its own working
space, which is not the same thing at all.

THe fact that it is
"handled *for* you" doesn't eliminate the need for it.

yes it does. there is no need for assign or convert in normal use,
certainly not to print to your own printer.

It was PeterN writing "RAW files are converted so that you can work
with them" to which you said "no".

and i still say no.

are you actually invoking either (or both) of those menu items?

if you say yes, that's part of your problem.

On 2017-02-21 03:09:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:43:11 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-02-21 00:30:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:07:15 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-02-20 22:10:06 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:08:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:


In my workflow that wouldn't require a change in colorspace. It will
require setting the appropriate specific paper/printer icc profile,
which is not a colorspace. Also, because I don't have a nine ink Epson
like Eric's P800, I would have to swap out the Photo Black ink for
Matte Black ink.

So would you if you had a 3880 or a P800

R3880 yes, it uses the same 8 ink cart system as my R2880, all be it
with smaller capacity carts. The P800 no, as it has nine ink carts and
automatic matte black/photo black switching.

My 3800 had auto switching too.

OK. So the R3800 was a nine cart printer with auto black switching, and
after checking specs so was the R3880. Little brother R2880 is not.

I never knew that!

I can disable the auto switching if I want.

The switch should only go into effect with changes to matte papers, if
it Matte black ink is used on non-porus, glazed, polished, or glossy
papers the prints will be vulnerable to smearing.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:19:18 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:17:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:24:52 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:17:49 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

This last are my thoughts also. With my earlier article of today in
which I cited the Windows Color System they are at root of my original
question: how excatly does Windows 10 handle all this when printing?

On the pc in question, do you always get the same, consistent output
under the same conditions, or can you get different results at times
under identical settings? If they are always the same, I'll ask again
- are you 100% positive that the Spyder calibration is actually
loading, and controlling the display driver? Remember, you can easily
toggle the calibration on and off to check.

Consistent output, and the problems are with principally with
printing.

In that case, it seems less likely that you are letting both the
printer and the app control color.

Nope.

One other question, is the color
either on the display, or on the print *correct*to you?

What is correct? The sRGB display is what I am used to looking at, and
it looks OK. The Adobe RGB display looks different and slightly
strange but, who knows, it may be right. Both screens are calibrated.

Or do think
both are off? I'm asking, and I'm probably going to hear about this,
but I really don't think it's possible to match the display with the
print exactly, except through a tightly, and I'd think expensively
controlled environment, or though luck.

I don't expect the printer to match the display but the differences I
am seeing are not quite what I would expect.

The display has - or is - its
own light, but also has the room light falling on it at a constant
angle. The print is going to have only the room light at various
angles, along with its own reflectivity depending on the paper, and
the lighting the print will be displayed in will probably be different
yet.

Agreed, but I have four prints side by sidde on the same A2 sheet.


Finally, if you go into advanced display settings in Win 10, that
first page will show which color profile (for the display) is current.
You can then go into color management. There are 3 tabs at the top.
You can go through the "All Profiles", and look around for something
that doesn't look right (there are lots of settings). If there are
problems, there is an option on the "Devices" tab to check," use my
settings for this device". You could use that to force the PC to load
the Spyder profile. I don't think you should have to do that, though.
Also, if you have 2 Win10 computers, you could compare those settings.

Adding a second computer to the test is something I would rather
avoid, especially since its screen can't handle Adobe RGB.

I meant only to go into the settings list on both PC's, and see if
there is anything very different in the settings between the
computers. It's Windows after all, and something might have gotten
munged.

One last thing since you mentioned something about hue & saturation:
you didn't inadvertently check a box somewhere calling for "vivid"
prints, or something along those lines, right?

No :-) Nor did I check the one labeled "drab". More :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-02-21 03:15:35 +0000, Bill W said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:49:43 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Many of the current calibration tools make adjustments via software to
compensate for changing room light.

Yes, and that should keep the display brightness pretty consistent.

The print is going to have only the room light at various
angles, along with its own reflectivity depending on the paper, and
the lighting the print will be displayed in will probably be different
yet.

It is a good idea to have a good consistent light source for print
examination rather than room light which might fluctuate through the
day.

And it would have to be isolated from any other ambient light. I think
that a lot of precautions are justified if you are printing things for
paying customers, but for everyone else, I'm not sure how far a person
should reasonably go. And finally, you still have to consider the
lighting where it will be displayed.

And here's another issue I have with all this: If I take a photo on a
Sunday, and for a more extreme example, let's say it's a photo of a
car on display on a public street. By the time I get around to
processing and printing that photo, I am very confident that I don't
remember exactly what that photo is supposed to look like. And the
reason I mentioned the public street is that many of my photos are
taken with many different light sources - think downtown Las Vegas. So
how do I know if the display colors are correct, or the print colors?

You don't. That is a circumstance where your interpretation of your
experience is what you present to the rest of the World. That is the
case for many street, cityscape, and landscape photographers. Their
final presentations are all very interpretive and not a true
representation of the scene.

I just admit to myself that I don't, and adjust until I like it,
having no idea whatsoever how accurate it is. The only thing I feel I
can do is get the no-brainer colors right - the concrete, the asphalt,
things that are clearly supposed to be white. Or in other photos, the
sky, the clouds, and grass.

Ultimately it is going to be your representation, and interpretation of
the scene. A Kodachrome, Ectachrome, Velvia, or Realta image is not a
true representation of the light and color when the shutter was
tripped. Each film is going to add its own character, as is every
digital editor.

Sometimes I think folks who claim to get the colors *right*, or
exactly as they remember them, are full of it. Or I'm just envious.

They get them right for themselves, so no need to be envious. To say
that their particular colors are right is total BS. The task at hand is
to achieve a balance of exposure, contrast, and saturation, along with
individual subtle adjustments which are in some mysterious way,
appealing and pleasing to the eye of the creator of the image, and
his/her viewers.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:41:15 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-02-21 03:15:35 +0000, Bill W said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:49:43 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Many of the current calibration tools make adjustments via software to
compensate for changing room light.

Yes, and that should keep the display brightness pretty consistent.

The print is going to have only the room light at various
angles, along with its own reflectivity depending on the paper, and
the lighting the print will be displayed in will probably be different
yet.

It is a good idea to have a good consistent light source for print
examination rather than room light which might fluctuate through the
day.

And it would have to be isolated from any other ambient light. I think
that a lot of precautions are justified if you are printing things for
paying customers, but for everyone else, I'm not sure how far a person
should reasonably go. And finally, you still have to consider the
lighting where it will be displayed.

And here's another issue I have with all this: If I take a photo on a
Sunday, and for a more extreme example, let's say it's a photo of a
car on display on a public street. By the time I get around to
processing and printing that photo, I am very confident that I don't
remember exactly what that photo is supposed to look like. And the
reason I mentioned the public street is that many of my photos are
taken with many different light sources - think downtown Las Vegas. So
how do I know if the display colors are correct, or the print colors?

You don't. That is a circumstance where your interpretation of your
experience is what you present to the rest of the World. That is the
case for many street, cityscape, and landscape photographers. Their
final presentations are all very interpretive and not a true
representation of the scene.

I just admit to myself that I don't, and adjust until I like it,
having no idea whatsoever how accurate it is. The only thing I feel I
can do is get the no-brainer colors right - the concrete, the asphalt,
things that are clearly supposed to be white. Or in other photos, the
sky, the clouds, and grass.

Ultimately it is going to be your representation, and interpretation of
the scene. A Kodachrome, Ectachrome, Velvia, or Realta image is not a
true representation of the light and color when the shutter was
tripped. Each film is going to add its own character, as is every
digital editor.

Sometimes I think folks who claim to get the colors *right*, or
exactly as they remember them, are full of it. Or I'm just envious.

They get them right for themselves, so no need to be envious. To say
that their particular colors are right is total BS. The task at hand is
to achieve a balance of exposure, contrast, and saturation, along with
individual subtle adjustments which are in some mysterious way,
appealing and pleasing to the eye of the creator of the image, and
his/her viewers.

I suppose that should all be common sense, but it's reassuring to hear
someone else just say it. I guess my doubts have over the years come
from things I've read about all the work someone did to get things
*right*. Maybe it's just me who is taking that literally when I should
be reading what you said - right for themselves. I shouldn't just
immediately assume pretentiousness.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:25:03 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-02-21 03:09:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:43:11 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-02-21 00:30:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:07:15 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-02-20 22:10:06 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:08:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:


In my workflow that wouldn't require a change in colorspace. It will
require setting the appropriate specific paper/printer icc profile,
which is not a colorspace. Also, because I don't have a nine ink Epson
like Eric's P800, I would have to swap out the Photo Black ink for
Matte Black ink.

So would you if you had a 3880 or a P800

R3880 yes, it uses the same 8 ink cart system as my R2880, all be it
with smaller capacity carts. The P800 no, as it has nine ink carts and
automatic matte black/photo black switching.

My 3800 had auto switching too.

OK. So the R3800 was a nine cart printer with auto black switching, and
after checking specs so was the R3880. Little brother R2880 is not.

I never knew that!

I can disable the auto switching if I want.

The switch should only go into effect with changes to matte papers, if
it Matte black ink is used on non-porus, glazed, polished, or glossy
papers the prints will be vulnerable to smearing.

Yep.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:21:01 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Not in the course of my testing. I'm working from raw files.


RAW files are converted so that you can work with them.

no.

You have to have a color space when you work with them. You have to
nominate one for PS.

peter is concerned about assign versus convert. that doesn't come into
play. when you open the file, it's handled *for* you.

I was responding to your "no need for either one". There IS a need a
need for one of them and I was telling you why.

and i'm telling you the difference between what he's saying and what
you're saying.

he's referring to the two menu choices, assign & convert, at the bottom
of the edit menu.

what you're referring to is photoshop's conversion to its own working
space, which is not the same thing at all.

Stop quibling.

PeterN didn't say anything except that asign or convert was necessary.
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.

THe fact that it is
"handled *for* you" doesn't eliminate the need for it.

yes it does. there is no need for assign or convert in normal use,
certainly not to print to your own printer.

If there is no need for it, why is it automatically handled for you?

Why is it not asigned or converted for use in my printer? What is
special about my printer? Is it assigned or converted for somebody
else's printer? Are you getting confused between color space and
printer profile?

It was PeterN writing "RAW files are converted so that you can work
with them" to which you said "no".

and i still say no.

are you actually invoking either (or both) of those menu items?

if you say yes, that's part of your problem.

Of course I'm not invoking either of those menu items. As you have
already pointed out it is "handled *for* you (me)".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:15:35 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:49:43 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Many of the current calibration tools make adjustments via software to
compensate for changing room light.

Yes, and that should keep the display brightness pretty consistent.

The print is going to have only the room light at various
angles, along with its own reflectivity depending on the paper, and
the lighting the print will be displayed in will probably be different
yet.

It is a good idea to have a good consistent light source for print
examination rather than room light which might fluctuate through the
day.

And it would have to be isolated from any other ambient light. I think
that a lot of precautions are justified if you are printing things for
paying customers, but for everyone else, I'm not sure how far a person
should reasonably go. And finally, you still have to consider the
lighting where it will be displayed.

And here's another issue I have with all this: If I take a photo on a
Sunday, and for a more extreme example, let's say it's a photo of a
car on display on a public street. By the time I get around to
processing and printing that photo, I am very confident that I don't
remember exactly what that photo is supposed to look like. And the
reason I mentioned the public street is that many of my photos are
taken with many different light sources - think downtown Las Vegas. So
how do I know if the display colors are correct, or the print colors?
I just admit to myself that I don't, and adjust until I like it,
having no idea whatsoever how accurate it is. The only thing I feel I
can do is get the no-brainer colors right - the concrete, the asphalt,
things that are clearly supposed to be white. Or in other photos, the
sky, the clouds, and grass.

Sometimes I think folks who claim to get the colors *right*, or
exactly as they remember them, are full of it. Or I'm just envious.

I more or less fully agree with you. The correct colors of an image
are in the mind of the beholder.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Not in the course of my testing. I'm working from raw files.


RAW files are converted so that you can work with them.

no.

You have to have a color space when you work with them. You have to
nominate one for PS.

peter is concerned about assign versus convert. that doesn't come into
play. when you open the file, it's handled *for* you.

I was responding to your "no need for either one". There IS a need a
need for one of them and I was telling you why.

and i'm telling you the difference between what he's saying and what
you're saying.

he's referring to the two menu choices, assign & convert, at the bottom
of the edit menu.

what you're referring to is photoshop's conversion to its own working
space, which is not the same thing at all.

Stop quibling.

it's not quibbling.

PeterN didn't say anything except that asign or convert was necessary.

he's referring to the menu commands, which are not necessary.

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.

THe fact that it is
"handled *for* you" doesn't eliminate the need for it.

yes it does. there is no need for assign or convert in normal use,
certainly not to print to your own printer.

If there is no need for it, why is it automatically handled for you?

it's not in the way you think it is.

Why is it not asigned or converted for use in my printer? What is
special about my printer? Is it assigned or converted for somebody
else's printer? Are you getting confused between color space and
printer profile?

it ain't me who is confused.

you're the one with the messed up photos.

It was PeterN writing "RAW files are converted so that you can work
with them" to which you said "no".

and i still say no.

are you actually invoking either (or both) of those menu items?

if you say yes, that's part of your problem.

Of course I'm not invoking either of those menu items. As you have
already pointed out it is "handled *for* you (me)".

then why argue about it?

On 2/20/2017 8:26 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/20/2017 7:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:56:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:54:19 -0500, PeterN

snip to please a complainer about not snipping


If you look under edit, there are two methods for changing the
profile,
assign and convert. Which one do you use.

Convert


We eliminated one possible cause.

Have you tried calling Epson support?

Not yet. I don't think it is their problem.


Sometimes you get surprising results when calling tech support. Yes
sometimes you don't. I had an issue with an HP device. MS tech support
said it was a faulty MS driver. MS support said the problem was with
an HP driver. I was able to get the two techs talking with me on a
conference call. As a result MS agreed it was indeed an MS issue. I
received a patch from MS within a week.


I have needed to call MS tech support only once. It was years ago and
it was a good experience. I went through three levels of techs within
one hour and the problem was resolved.