Color management in Windows

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?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
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...18(v=vs.85).as
px

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?

For all systems:

Use a widely used and recognize wide gamut colour space, like ProPhoto
for RAW conversion, master files and printing and sRGB for the web and
other sharing unless any other colorspace is specifically requested.

HTH.
--
teleportation kills

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:28:05 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
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...18(v=vs.85).as
px

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?

For all systems:

Use a widely used and recognize wide gamut colour space, like ProPhoto
for RAW conversion, master files and printing and sRGB for the web and
other sharing unless any other colorspace is specifically requested.

HTH.

That's all very well but my understanding is that ICM reduces almost
everything to sRGB irrespective of what you have fed it with. *If*
your software can provide the necessary information to Windows it is
possible to output via the wider WCS color space. From what I have
read that facility is there but not everybody uses it. But my
understanding may be quite wrong. That's why I am asking for help.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:28:05 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
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...614618(v=vs.85)
.as
px

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?

For all systems:

Use a widely used and recognize wide gamut colour space, like ProPhoto
for RAW conversion, master files and printing and sRGB for the web and
other sharing unless any other colorspace is specifically requested.

HTH.

That's all very well but my understanding is that ICM reduces almost
everything to sRGB irrespective of what you have fed it with. *If*
your software can provide the necessary information to Windows it is
possible to output via the wider WCS color space. From what I have
read that facility is there but not everybody uses it. But my
understanding may be quite wrong. That's why I am asking for help.

If you use software that are aware of color profiles then it should
embed the information on which space is used when you save the file.

Use sRGB for the web and sharing.
--
teleportation kills

On 2/16/2017 8:06 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
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.

The color space of devices have never limited by Windows. It is
determined by hardware and its drivers. Even as far back as Windows 3.1,
it was possible to work in 32bit color space if you had the right video
card. AdobeRGB and sRGB have been supported by many video cards and
printers for decades, now.

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

Your beating the wrong horse. If your monitor and printer are
calibrated, you should be able to get the expected gamut in your prints.
This, too, is not new, nor under native Windows control, it is
functionality added by the hardware and it's drivers.

--
best regards,

Neil

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:08:42 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:28:05 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
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...614618(v=vs.85)
.as
px

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?

For all systems:

Use a widely used and recognize wide gamut colour space, like ProPhoto
for RAW conversion, master files and printing and sRGB for the web and
other sharing unless any other colorspace is specifically requested.

HTH.

That's all very well but my understanding is that ICM reduces almost
everything to sRGB irrespective of what you have fed it with. *If*
your software can provide the necessary information to Windows it is
possible to output via the wider WCS color space. From what I have
read that facility is there but not everybody uses it. But my
understanding may be quite wrong. That's why I am asking for help.

If you use software that are aware of color profiles then it should
embed the information on which space is used when you save the file.

Use sRGB for the web and sharing.

Maybe so, but I am thinking about printing when I want to use
AdobeRGB. My understanding is that irrespective of PhotoShop using a
ProPhoto color space, Windows dishes me up sRGB for screen and sRGB
for my printer, both of which devices are capable of more if only I
could get it to them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:19:49 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/16/2017 8:06 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
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.

The color space of devices have never limited by Windows. It is
determined by hardware and its drivers. Even as far back as Windows 3.1,
it was possible to work in 32bit color space if you had the right video
card. AdobeRGB and sRGB have been supported by many video cards and
printers for decades, now.

sRGB was created by Microsoft and Hewlett Packard in 1996 while
AdobeRGB was developed in 1998. Windows Color System 1.0 dates from
1998.

"sRGB Color Management Case Studies - Microsoft" (I can't extract the
URL) from 2001 makes an interesting read and describes some of the
ways that software can get in the way of color management.

http://www.ohio.edu/people/schneidw/2400/ps_cms.pdf makes an
interesting statement:

"In Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0, color management does not occur
at the system level, but at the application level using CMSs such
as Kodak KCMS and Agfa’s FotoTune. In Windows 98 and Windows NT
5.0, Microsoft intends to use ICM 2.0, which was developed by
Microsoft and uses the same Linotype-Hell CMM as ColorSync 2.0"

So these days does color management occur at the system level or the
application level or is the author of an application able to choose? I
have carried out a number of tests with both print and screen that
suggests that several color management channels are available and they
all give quite different results.


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

Your beating the wrong horse. If your monitor and printer are
calibrated, you should be able to get the expected gamut in your prints.
This, too, is not new, nor under native Windows control, it is
functionality added by the hardware and it's drivers.

My screen is calibrated but I have yet to do anything with the
printer. I don't think it is a calibration problem.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/17/2017 9:20 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:19:49 -0500, Neil
wrote:

On 2/16/2017 8:06 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
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.

The color space of devices have never limited by Windows. It is
determined by hardware and its drivers. Even as far back as Windows 3.1,
it was possible to work in 32bit color space if you had the right video
card. AdobeRGB and sRGB have been supported by many video cards and
printers for decades, now.

sRGB was created by Microsoft and Hewlett Packard in 1996 while
AdobeRGB was developed in 1998. Windows Color System 1.0 dates from
1998.

"sRGB Color Management Case Studies - Microsoft" (I can't extract the
URL) from 2001 makes an interesting read and describes some of the
ways that software can get in the way of color management.

http://www.ohio.edu/people/schneidw/2400/ps_cms.pdf makes an
interesting statement:

"In Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0, color management does not occur
at the system level, but at the application level using CMSs such
as Kodak KCMS and Agfa’s FotoTune. In Windows 98 and Windows NT
5.0, Microsoft intends to use ICM 2.0, which was developed by
Microsoft and uses the same Linotype-Hell CMM as ColorSync 2.0"

So these days does color management occur at the system level or the
application level or is the author of an application able to choose? I
have carried out a number of tests with both print and screen that
suggests that several color management channels are available and they
all give quite different results.

I think it is a good idea to differentiate between professional users
and others. For professional users, color management under Windows was
always an application-level process. However, to be clear, "application"
includes system-level hardware, such as video cards, calibration
equipment, monitors, printers, etc. Professional users integrate all of
these items into a system.

For consumers, OS-level color management is an improvement over previous
capability, but is less than professional quality with fewer options.


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

Your beating the wrong horse. If your monitor and printer are
calibrated, you should be able to get the expected gamut in your prints.
This, too, is not new, nor under native Windows control, it is
functionality added by the hardware and it's drivers.

My screen is calibrated but I have yet to do anything with the
printer. I don't think it is a calibration problem.

If you aren't getting predictable results from your prints, then it is
definitely a calibration problem, since that's what "calibration" means.
Many consumer-grade printers "calibrate" themselves to print a
particular gamut, but there is limited correlation between that and what
you see on your monitor. The same applies to consumer-grade monitors.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:


http://www.ohio.edu/people/schneidw/2400/ps_cms.pdf makes an
interesting statement:

"In Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0, color management does not occur
at the system level, but at the application level using CMSs such
as Kodak KCMS and Agfa¹s FotoTune. In Windows 98 and Windows NT
5.0, Microsoft intends to use ICM 2.0, which was developed by
Microsoft and uses the same Linotype-Hell CMM as ColorSync 2.0"

So these days does color management occur at the system level or the
application level or is the author of an application able to choose? I
have carried out a number of tests with both print and screen that
suggests that several color management channels are available and they
all give quite different results.

I think it is a good idea to differentiate between professional users
and others.

what for?

For professional users, color management under Windows was
always an application-level process. However, to be clear, "application"
includes system-level hardware, such as video cards, calibration
equipment, monitors, printers, etc. Professional users integrate all of
these items into a system.

macs and ios devices have colour management done at the system level.
*everything* is colour managed, including icons drawn on the desktop.

For consumers, OS-level color management is an improvement over previous
capability, but is less than professional quality with fewer options.

nonsense. the quality is identical, regardless of the type of user. the
computer doesn't know whether the person sitting in front of it is a
pro or a newbie, nor does it care.

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

That's all very well but my understanding is that ICM reduces almost
everything to sRGB irrespective of what you have fed it with. *If*
your software can provide the necessary information to Windows it is
possible to output via the wider WCS color space. From what I have
read that facility is there but not everybody uses it. But my
understanding may be quite wrong. That's why I am asking for help.

If you use software that are aware of color profiles then it should
embed the information on which space is used when you save the file.

Use sRGB for the web and sharing.

Maybe so, but I am thinking about printing when I want to use
AdobeRGB. My understanding is that irrespective of PhotoShop using a
ProPhoto color space, Windows dishes me up sRGB for screen and sRGB
for my printer, both of which devices are capable of more if only I
could get it to them.

PhotoShop should use the colorspace that you wnat it to use, and you
should be able to se that that you use in some softprofing tool. After
that I don't see any reason to use a limited gamut then sending the file
to the printer than the printer driver acceppts.

This image should look the same in your bitmap editor soft prof utility
and your final print:

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/TaggedsRGB.jpg

It's from this page on calibrating web browsers:

http://www.gballard.net/firefox/#

Have a nice weekend! :-))
--
teleportation kills