Color management in Windows

On 2017-02-18 15:54:39 +0000, nospam said:

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.

Don't muddy the water too much.
After all this seems to be a Windows specific issue, and Eric is not
about to go out and buy a Mac.

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.

That much is true. However, if there are output inconsistencies it
helps to have a solution, and Eric has output inconsistencies.
Personnally I use a color managed system starting with a calibrated
display set to the Pantone calibration, wide gamut workspace(ProPhoto
RGB or Adobe RGB 1998) for processing and editing, matched icc
paper/printer profiles for printing and sRGB for online display or
sharing.

I know that Eric calibrates his displays, but there seems to be an
issue with Windows 10 not letting him use the wide gamut available to
his new display and a similar colorspace dissociation between Windows
and his printer, an "R" series Epson which is not exactly an amateur
hour printer.
At this stage I have no idea what colorspace Eric is using for
processing or editing, since he is using LR CC + PS CC, I assume he is
using ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB (1998), or should be. So with the
discontinuity between Windows-display-processing-output, the result is
inconsistant print results.
The way I see things the issue lies with Windows.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-02-18 16:54:11 +0000, android said:

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.

Photoshop will use whatever colorspace you choose, Lightroom gives you
a choice of ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB(1998), prefering ProPhoto RGB.
Both will, with the print dialog appropriately set up, will softproof
and allow for matching adjustment in the softproof print dialog.

The only time there should be a need to convert to sRGB is if the
output is intended for online sharing for display viewing, or for a
print shop which has specified sRGB for their print files.

Personally, I only convert to sRGB when I export JPEGs from LR, or PS
for sharing. All my prints are done from processed RAW, PSD, or TIFF
files in LR or PS where ProPhoto RGB is maintained and the print is
made (usually via LR print module) with a paper/printer specific icc
profile after softproofing.

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! :-))


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2017021809024766962-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


"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.

Don't muddy the water too much.
After all this seems to be a Windows specific issue, and Eric is not
about to go out and buy a Mac.

no mud. it's simply additional information.

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.

That much is true. However, if there are output inconsistencies it
helps to have a solution, and Eric has output inconsistencies.
Personnally I use a color managed system starting with a calibrated
display set to the Pantone calibration, wide gamut workspace(ProPhoto
RGB or Adobe RGB 1998) for processing and editing, matched icc
paper/printer profiles for printing and sRGB for online display or
sharing.

you use a mac, so things just work as expected with little to no fuss.

I know that Eric calibrates his displays, but there seems to be an
issue with Windows 10 not letting him use the wide gamut available to
his new display and a similar colorspace dissociation between Windows
and his printer, an "R" series Epson which is not exactly an amateur
hour printer.
At this stage I have no idea what colorspace Eric is using for
processing or editing, since he is using LR CC + PS CC, I assume he is
using ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB (1998), or should be. So with the
discontinuity between Windows-display-processing-output, the result is
inconsistant print results.

the link posted a few weeks ago mentioned a rather serious limitation
with windows printing.

The way I see things the issue lies with Windows.

absolutely.

On 2/18/2017 12:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-02-18 15:54:39 +0000, nospam said:

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.

Don't muddy the water too much.
After all this seems to be a Windows specific issue, and Eric is not
about to go out and buy a Mac.

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.

That much is true. However, if there are output inconsistencies it helps
to have a solution, and Eric has output inconsistencies.
Personnally I use a color managed system starting with a calibrated
display set to the Pantone calibration, wide gamut workspace(ProPhoto
RGB or Adobe RGB 1998) for processing and editing, matched icc
paper/printer profiles for printing and sRGB for online display or sharing.

I know that Eric calibrates his displays, but there seems to be an issue
with Windows 10 not letting him use the wide gamut available to his new
display and a similar colorspace dissociation between Windows and his
printer, an "R" series Epson which is not exactly an amateur hour printer.
At this stage I have no idea what colorspace Eric is using for
processing or editing, since he is using LR CC + PS CC, I assume he is
using ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB (1998), or should be. So with the
discontinuity between Windows-display-processing-output, the result is
inconsistant print results.
The way I see things the issue lies with Windows.

Under Windows, color management capabilities are still device-dependent,
and rely on the firmware and drivers supplied by the hardware
manufacturers. For example, all monitors are not created equally, nor
are printers (one reason for the wide price range for these items).
Skilled professionals can easily see performance differences between
different models and makes. How well they can be calibrated for
different workspaces, papers, etc. depend on the quality of their
firmware and drivers.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:

The way I see things the issue lies with Windows.

Under Windows, color management capabilities are still device-dependent,
and rely on the firmware and drivers supplied by the hardware
manufacturers.

that's just asking for problems.

For example, all monitors are not created equally, nor
are printers (one reason for the wide price range for these items).

nobody said they were.

Skilled professionals can easily see performance differences between
different models and makes.

one need not be a skilled professional to see differences.

How well they can be calibrated for
different workspaces, papers, etc. depend on the quality of their
firmware and drivers.

nope. what matters are the capabilities and quality of the product
itself, as well as the tools used to do the calibration/profiling.

On 2017-02-18 19:49:19 +0000, Neil said:

On 2/18/2017 12:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-02-18 15:54:39 +0000, nospam said:
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.

Don't muddy the water too much.
After all this seems to be a Windows specific issue, and Eric is not
about to go out and buy a Mac.

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.

That much is true. However, if there are output inconsistencies it helps
to have a solution, and Eric has output inconsistencies.
Personnally I use a color managed system starting with a calibrated
display set to the Pantone calibration, wide gamut workspace(ProPhoto
RGB or Adobe RGB 1998) for processing and editing, matched icc
paper/printer profiles for printing and sRGB for online display or sharing.

I know that Eric calibrates his displays, but there seems to be an issue
with Windows 10 not letting him use the wide gamut available to his new
display and a similar colorspace dissociation between Windows and his
printer, an "R" series Epson which is not exactly an amateur hour printer.
At this stage I have no idea what colorspace Eric is using for
processing or editing, since he is using LR CC + PS CC, I assume he is
using ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB (1998), or should be. So with the
discontinuity between Windows-display-processing-output, the result is
inconsistant print results.
The way I see things the issue lies with Windows.

Under Windows, color management capabilities are still
device-dependent, and rely on the firmware and drivers supplied by the
hardware manufacturers.

Yet Eric still has issues with W10, and some discontinuity he is unable to fix.

For example, all monitors are not created equally, nor are printers
(one reason for the wide price range for these items).

....and he has, what I understand to be a reasonablely high performance
display capable of accomodating a 100% Adobe RGB gamut.

He also had an Epson R3880 and replaced it with a P800 which is a not
inexpensive ($1295) 8 color, pro level printer. Add to that, his image
files are coming out of a Nikon D750 with processing done from NEF with
Adobe LR + PS CC. He doesn't exactly have an amateur hour processing
set up.

Skilled professionals can easily see performance differences between
different models and makes. How well they can be calibrated for
different workspaces, papers, etc. depend on the quality of their
firmware and drivers.

I believe that Eric has as much experience, skill, including
calibration capability, and equipment as many pros. What he has is a
disparity issue which he has not been able to fully identify, along
with a solution or advice from any of us which might provide that fix.
Saying that "professionals can easily see performance differences" is
little help, especially when skilled amateurs see the same performance
differences. What he needs is an effective answer, which so far is not
forthcoming from any of us.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 17:54:11 +0100, android wrote:

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! :-))

Actually I have been using
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2_ProPhoto.tif
which I obtained from the Steinmuller & Jurgens web site. I have also
used a number of test prints of my own contriving including
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Composite.jpg
which was constructed with an Adobe RGB color space.

I've carried out quite a number of print trials and the results have
got me puzzled.

My original post arose from my attempts to find out what really is
going on.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:04:00 -0500, Neil
wrote:

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.

It's definitely a calibration problem and it has come to light as a
result of my attempts increase my printer's color space from sRGB to
Adobe RGB. Epson claims the printer is Adobe RGB capable but I am
getting some very strange results. I would describe them in more
detail but the number of variables with which I have been playing
makes the situation too difficult to describe except with a vast cloud
of words.

From my point of view what I hope to find is a detailed description of
how Windows 10 color management works, complete with a detailed flow
diagram. I suspect it's a bit much to hope for and would probably
require a book.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

rOn Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:02:47 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-02-18 15:54:39 +0000, nospam said:

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.

Don't muddy the water too much.
After all this seems to be a Windows specific issue, and Eric is not
about to go out and buy a Mac.

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.

That much is true. However, if there are output inconsistencies it
helps to have a solution, and Eric has output inconsistencies.
Personnally I use a color managed system starting with a calibrated
display set to the Pantone calibration, wide gamut workspace(ProPhoto
RGB or Adobe RGB 1998) for processing and editing, matched icc
paper/printer profiles for printing and sRGB for online display or
sharing.

I know that Eric calibrates his displays, but there seems to be an
issue with Windows 10 not letting him use the wide gamut available to
his new display and a similar colorspace dissociation between Windows
and his printer, an "R" series Epson which is not exactly an amateur
hour printer.
At this stage I have no idea what colorspace Eric is using for
processing or editing, since he is using LR CC + PS CC, I assume he is
using ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB (1998), or should be. So with the
discontinuity between Windows-display-processing-output, the result is
inconsistant print results.
The way I see things the issue lies with Windows.

Everything you have said is correct.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:31:56 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

The way I see things the issue lies with Windows.

Under Windows, color management capabilities are still device-dependent,
and rely on the firmware and drivers supplied by the hardware
manufacturers.

that's just asking for problems.

For example, all monitors are not created equally, nor
are printers (one reason for the wide price range for these items).

nobody said they were.

Skilled professionals can easily see performance differences between
different models and makes.

one need not be a skilled professional to see differences.

How well they can be calibrated for
different workspaces, papers, etc. depend on the quality of their
firmware and drivers.

nope. what matters are the capabilities and quality of the product
itself, as well as the tools used to do the calibration/profiling.

The matter is further complicated for printing in that the calibration
is dependent on the ink system and the media. The ink system doesn't
usually change much (except in the case of black inks for the Epson
P800) but the media is widely variable.

For my tests I have been using the correct Epson inks (as I always do)
and Epson Premium Glossy paper which I believe gives the widest gamut.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens